Back

SMELL-RS: A Self-administered, Digital Test for Olfactory Dysfunction that is Rapid, Reliable, and Accurate

Hsieh, J. W.; Dougherty, M.; Poulopoulou, A.; Blidariu, D.; Senn, P.; Hopper, R.; Patel, D.; Maggioni, E.; Obrist, M.; Vosshall, L. B.; Keller, A.; Landis, B.

2026-03-31 otolaryngology
10.64898/2026.03.28.26349316 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Smell testing is increasingly recognized as essential in rhinology practice but remains underutilized because of time constraints and limited clinical resources. This study aimed to evaluate the performance (test-retest reliability, accuracy and test completion time) of a self-administered, digital version of SMELL-RS, a non-semantic test of olfactory resolution (SMELL-R) and sensitivity (SMELL-S). Methodology: We performed a test-retest reliability study in a tertiary care facility. We enrolled 100 subjects with and without smell dysfunction. The primary outcome measures were two replicates of olfactory test scores (SMELL-RS composite score, SMELL-R score, SMELL-S score). The secondary outcome measures were Sniffin Sticks score, test completion time, patient demographics, and other clinical characteristics (clinical symptoms, etiologies). Results: The SMELL-RS composite score was reliable (ICC=0.71; p<0.0001) and correlated with the Sniffin Sticks composite score (r=0.68; p<0.0001). Different etiologies have different magnitudes of smell loss as revealed by the SMELL-RS score. SMELL-S reduces misdiagnosis associated with Sniffin Sticks threshold tests. The average completion time of the olfactory resolution test (SMELL-R) was on average 5.9 minutes (SD=1.9), while the average completion time of the olfactory sensitivity test (SMELL-S) was 5.5 minutes (SD=2.7). This is two to three times faster than the corresponding Sniffin Sticks tests. Conclusions: SMELL-RS is a rapid, fully automated, reliable, and accurate olfactory test suitable for self-administration in a clinical setting.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.