\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[greek,ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Characteristics associated with objective gustatory dysfunction in
patients with subjective chemosensory dysfunction}



\author[1]{Hyun Jin Min}%
\author[1]{Kyung Soo Kim}%
\author[1]{Il-Youp  Kwak}%
\affil[1]{Chung-Ang University}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 21, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
\textbf{Intro:} Evaluation of gustatory dysfunction is important in
patients with subjective chemosensory dysfunction, especially for
geriatrics. This study investigated the clinical characteristics
associated with objective gustatory dysfunction in patients with
chemosensory dysfunction. \textbf{Methods:} The Medical records of
patients who visited the smell and taste center in a tertiary medical
center were reviewed. Patients who underwent all the psychophysical
olfactory and chemical gustatory function tests and the subjective
questionnaire about chemosensory function were enrolled in this study.
The clinical characteristics associated with the objective diagnosis of
gustatory dysfunction were statistically analyzed. \textbf{Results:} A
total of 219 patients were enrolled; 180 were objectively diagnosed as
having normal gustatory function, and 39 were objectively diagnosed as
having gustatory dysfunction. Subjective recognition of gustatory
function was not associated with objective gustatory function. Age, sex,
objective olfactory function, and the threshold and discrimination
scores for the olfactory function test were significant factors in the
multivariate analysis. When the patients were further divided according
to age, the threshold test scores rather than other subsets in the
olfactory function test were significantly associated with objective
gustatory dysfunction in patients 60 and older. \textbf{Conclusion:} In
older adult male patients with olfactory dysfunction, gustatory function
should be considered regardless of subjective gustatory dysfunction.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


Characteristics associated with objective gustatory dysfunction in
patients with subjective chemosensory dysfunction

\textbf{Abstract}

\textbf{Intro:} Evaluation of gustatory dysfunction is important in
patients with subjective chemosensory dysfunction, especially for
geriatrics. This study investigated the clinical characteristics
associated with objective gustatory dysfunction in patients with
chemosensory dysfunction.

\textbf{Methods:} The Medical records of patients who visited the smell
and taste center in a tertiary medical center were reviewed. Patients
who underwent all the psychophysical olfactory and chemical gustatory
function tests and the subjective questionnaire about chemosensory
function were enrolled in this study. The clinical characteristics
associated with the objective diagnosis of gustatory dysfunction were
statistically analyzed.

\textbf{Results:} A total of 219 patients were enrolled; 180 were
objectively diagnosed as having normal gustatory function, and 39 were
objectively diagnosed as having gustatory dysfunction. Subjective
recognition of gustatory function was not associated with objective
gustatory function. Age, sex, objective olfactory function, and the
threshold and discrimination scores for the olfactory function test were
significant factors in the multivariate analysis. When the patients were
further divided according to age, the threshold test scores rather than
other subsets in the olfactory function test were significantly
associated with objective gustatory dysfunction in patients 60 and
older.

\textbf{Conclusion:} In older adult male patients with olfactory
dysfunction, gustatory function should be considered regardless of
subjective gustatory dysfunction.

Keywords: Gustatory dysfunction, age, gustatory function test,
relationship, olfactory

\textbf{Key points}

-Objective gustatory dysfunction did not correlate with subjective
gustatory symptoms.

-Age, sex (male), DM, and subjective and objective olfactory
dysfunctions were significant factors in objective gustatory dysfunction
in patients complaining of chemosensory discomfort.

-Among olfactory function test subsets, the threshold score of the
olfactory function test was significantly associated with objective
gustatory dysfunction in older patients.

\textbf{1. Introduction}

Loss of chemosensory function is associated with various conditions,
such as natural aging, underlying chronic medical diseases, and
neurocognitive disorders.\textsuperscript{1} It has been reported that
10.6\% of American adults have reported an olfactory dysfunction within
the past year, and 23\% have had a lifetime of olfactory
dysfunction.\textsuperscript{2,3} Compared to olfactory dysfunction, the
prevalence of gustatory dysfunction is relatively low. Self-reported
gustatory dysfunction in the past year has been reported to occur in
only 5.3\% of American adults, with a lifetime loss of around
18.7\%.\textsuperscript{4}

Self-reports tend to underestimate the actual prevalence of chemosensory
dysfunction.\textsuperscript{3,5} It has been reported that the vast
majority of patients complaining of gustatory dysfunction have no
deficit in the gustatory function test, and the sensitivity of the
questionnaire responses in detecting whole-mouth test-based gustatory
dysfunction was less than 0.76.\textsuperscript{6,7} Furthermore, data
regarding the prevalence of gustatory dysfunction show great
dissimilarities between studies, the reported rates of generalized
ageusia range from 0.84 to below 4\% in patients complaining of
gustatory dysfunction and up to almost 20\% in the healthy
population.\textsuperscript{8-11} These heterogeneous reports may be due
to the lack of standardized gustatory function tests and the substantial
effort and expense of preparing the different concentrations of taste
stimuli. These limit the clinical application of the test-based
gustatory function test and interfere with the early and proper
diagnosis of gustatory dysfunction.

It has been reported that gustatory and olfactory functions are
intermingled and affect each other. A patient's olfactory function
somehow alters the results of their gustatory function test and perhaps
reflects confusion between loss of taste and decreased flavor perception
secondary to loss of smell.\textsuperscript{7} To increase the
efficiency and accuracy of diagnosing gustatory dysfunction,
understanding the clinical characteristics, other than the subjective
recognition of the symptoms associated with the objectively diagnosed
gustatory is necessary.\textsuperscript{12}

This study sought to identify the clinical characteristics associated
with objective gustatory dysfunction, and suggest the meaningful factors
clinicians should recognize in diagnosing and managing patients who are
potential candidates for a gustatory function test.

\textbf{2. Materials and Methods}

\textbf{2.1 Subjects}

This manuscript was prepared using the STROBE checklist, and medical
records of patients who visited the smell and taste center of ******
University Hospital between October 2021 and February 2023 were
reviewed. The research protocol was reviewed and found to be in
compliance with the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) of ********University Hospital. The IRB
authorized the exemption of getting informed consent from the enrolled
subjects.

The inclusion criteria were adult patients who visited our clinic with a
complaint of olfactory or gustatory dysfunction and performed all the
psychophysical olfactory and chemical gustatory function tests and the
subjective questionnaire regarding their symptoms.

The exclusion criteria were patients whose subjective recognition of
olfactory or gustatory dysfunction could not be identified, who
underwent sinonasal surgery, or who had immunological diseases such as
malignancy. Patients previously diagnosed with cognitive dysfunction
were also excluded from this study.

\textbf{2.2 Olfactory and gustatory function test}

All patients underwent a psychophysical olfactory function test, the YSK
olfactory function test (YOF) (RHICO Medical Co., Seoul, South Korea).
The YOF test is a validated conventional psychophysical olfactory
function test composed of three subsets: threshold, discrimination, and
identification. The YOF test was performed following the manufacturer's
instructions. The threshold-discrimination-identification (TDI) score
range from 1 to 36, and the participants' olfactory function outcomes
were labeled as normosmia, hyposmia, or anosmia based on the previously
reported criteria.\textsuperscript{13}

The gustatory function test, which was developed and validated for use
with Korean populations, was applied.\textsuperscript{14} Briefly, the
testing protocol consisted of 30 taste solutions (six concentrations of
each of the five tastants: sweet (sucrose with a concentration ranging
from 0.0048 to 0.1563 g/mL), bitter (quinine hydrochloride;
0.00005--0.0016 g/mL), salty (sodium chloride; 0.0006--0.0192 g/mL),
sour (citric acid; 0.0002425--0.00781 g/mL), and umami (monosodium
glutamate; 0.002--0.064 g/mL). A single drop (approximately 40 \selectlanguage{greek}µ\selectlanguage{english}L) of
the taste solution was applied to the middle part of the anterior
one-third of the tongue, and between the drops, the patients were told
to rinse their mouths with tap water. The `taste score,' used to
evaluate the overall gustatory function, was the sum of the correctly
recognized taste thresholds. Patients with a recognition taste score of
less than 12 were regarded as having impaired gustatory
function.\textsuperscript{14}

The subjective questionnaires regarding chemosensory function were
obtained on their first visits.

\textbf{2.3 Statistical analysis}

The descriptive statistics for the continuous and categorical variables
are represented using the mean (with standard deviation) or count (with
frequency \%), respectively. Statistical differences in the baseline
characteristics between the groups were compared using Wilcoxon's rank
sum test and Fisher's exact test. Univariate and multivariate logistic
regression analyses were performed to identify significant factors that
affected the subjective and objective gustatory dysfunction compared
with normal function. The explanatory variables for the analysis were
age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, subjective smell, objective
smell, threshold, discrimination, identification, and TDI. The final
multivariate logistic regression models were derived using a stepwise
selection with Akaike information criteria (AIC). Statistical analyses
were performed using R version 4.2.2.

\textbf{3. Results}

The demographic and clinical characteristics of the enrolled subjects
are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics
from the objective test-based gustatory dysfunction perspective. In
total, 180 subjects were identified as having normal gustatory function,
and 39 were identified as having gustatory dysfunction. The mean age was
46.0 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 18.8 years in the normal gustatory function group and 56.5 ± 18.1
years in the gustatory dysfunction group. The difference in age between
the two groups was statistically significant (\emph{p} = 0.0016). The
composition of sex and the prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) were
statistically significant (\emph{p} = 0.001). The prevalence of
hypertension and the proportion of smokers were not different between
the two groups.

Regarding subjective olfactory function, the proportions of subjective
normosmia, hyposmia, and anosmia in the normal gustatory function group
were 8.3\%, 20\%, and 71.7\%, respectively. In the gustatory dysfunction
group, the proportions of subjective normosmia, hyposmia, and anosmia
were 38.5\%, 25.6\%, and 35.9\%, respectively. There was a statistically
significant difference between the two groups (\emph{p} \textless{}
0.0001). Regarding objective test-based olfactory function, the
proportions of normosmia, hyposmia, and anosmia were 43.3\%, 18.3\%, and
38.4\%, respectively, in the normal gustatory function group. In the
gustatory dysfunction group, the proportions of normosmia, hyposmia, and
anosmia were 46.2\%, 33.3\%, and 20.5\%, respectively. There was a
statistically significant difference between the two groups (\emph{p} =
0.041). The mean threshold, discrimination, identification, and TDI
scores also significantly differed between the two groups
(\emph{p}\textless{} 0.0001).

Next, the relationships between objective gustatory function and the
other variables were evaluated. Among the exploratory variables, age,
sex (male), DM, subjective olfactory function, threshold,
discrimination, identification, and TDI scores were significantly
associated with the presence of objective gustatory dysfunction in the
univariate analysis (Table 2). In the multivariate analysis, age, sex,
objective olfactory function, threshold, and discrimination score were
selected based on the AIC criteria. Age, sex (male), and objective
olfactory function were positively associated with objective gustatory
dysfunction, and the threshold and discrimination score were negatively
associated with objective gustatory dysfunction. However, when the
relationships between subjectively recognized gustatory function and
other variables were evaluated, smoking (\emph{p} = 0.028) and
subjective olfactory function (\emph{p} = 0.007) were positively
associated with subjective gustatory dysfunction in the univariate and
multivariate analyses (Supplementary Table 1). Figure 1 shows the violin
plots for the continuous variables (age, threshold, discrimination,
identification, and TDI) for the objective gustatory function. As shown
by the mean and variance information in Table 2 and Supplementary Table
2, there were no significant differences among the continuous variables
for subjective gustatory dysfunction (Figure 1A). However, for the
test-based objective gustatory function, differences were observed in
all the continuous variables (Figure 1B). Significant differences were
observed in the threshold, discrimination, identification, and TDI. This
was confirmed by the fact that the \emph{p} -values for these variables
were less than 0.0001 (Table 2).

Finally, the relationships between objective gustatory function and
other clinical variables were investigated according to age (age \selectlanguage{english}[?] 60
years and age \textless{} 60). Since there were only two patients with
hypertension in the under 60 group, the logistic regression did not
converge, and hypertension was excluded from the analysis. In the group
aged less than 60, subjective olfactory function, threshold,
discrimination, identification, and TDI score were significant variables
in the univariate analysis, and sex (male) (\emph{p} = 0.046) was
positively associated with objective gustatory dysfunction and the
threshold score (\emph{p} = 0.013) and discrimination score (\emph{p} =
0.010) were negatively associated with objective gustatory dysfunction
in the multivariate analysis. In the group aged \selectlanguage{english}[?] 60 years, sex (male),
subjective olfactory function, threshold, identification, and TDI score
were significant variables in the univariate analysis. Sex (male)
(\emph{p} = 0.012) was positively associated with objective gustatory
dysfunction, and the threshold score (\emph{p} = 0.0312) was negatively
associated with objective gustatory dysfunction in the multivariate
analysis (Table 3).

\textbf{4. Discussion}

This study found that old age, sex (male), DM, subjective olfactory
dysfunction, and objective diagnosis of olfactory dysfunction were
associated with the objective test-based diagnosis of gustatory
dysfunction by the univariate analysis, and old age, sex (male), and
objective diagnosis of olfactory dysfunction were significant factors in
the multivariate analysis. Additionally, it found that in subjects aged
60 years or older, the threshold score was more significantly correlated
with the objective diagnosis of gustatory dysfunction rather than the
other subsets in the olfactory function test or a diagnosis of olfactory
dysfunction based on the TDI score. It has been reported that subjective
recognition of gustatory function did not correspond to the gustatory
function test-based objective gustatory
function.\textsuperscript{6}Similarly, subjective recognition of
gustatory dysfunction was not associated with the objective diagnosis of
gustatory dysfunction in this study. Furthermore, the characteristics
associated with subjective gustatory dysfunction differed from those
with objective gustatory dysfunction (Table 2, Supplementary Table 1).
Therefore, other referencing characteristics, except for patient
discomfort, associated with objective gustatory dysfunction are
important for clinicians to determine the application of the gustatory
function test.

Variable factors, including endocrinological problems, are known to be
associated with gustatory dysfunction.\textsuperscript{12, 15} It was
found that the prevalence of xerostomia was 46.09\% among diabetic
patients, and salivary flow rates were lower in DM patients than in
non-DM patients.\textsuperscript{16} DM disturbs the hemostasis of the
oral cavity by altering salivary function and composition even in
well-controlled patients and increases the risk of burning mouth
syndrome.\textsuperscript{17} Although the exact pathogenic mechanisms
have not been identified, these factors could affect the gustatory
function in diabetic patients. We suggest that care should be applied to
DM patients regarding gustatory dysfunction regardless of subjective
complaints of gustatory dysfunction.

It has been reported that with the increase in age, gustatory function
tends to decrease, and studies have reported an age-related decrease in
taste function.\textsuperscript{8} This study also found that age was
significantly associated with objective gustatory dysfunction. The
interesting finding of this study was that the association between
objective olfactory function and objective gustatory dysfunction was
different between subjects aged less than 60 years old and subjects aged
60 years and older (Table 3). In the older patients (age \selectlanguage{english}[?] 60), the
threshold score of the olfactory function test was significantly
associated with objective gustatory dysfunction rather than other
subsets and the final diagnosis of olfactory dysfunction. However, in
patients under 60, the final diagnosis of olfactory function based on
the TDI score was significantly associated with objective gustatory
dysfunction. Among the olfactory function subsets, performance on the
odor identification tests is dependent on verbal abilities, and the
results can be influenced by cognitive and language
functions.\textsuperscript{18} Although this study excluded patients
previously diagnosed with cognitive impairments, there is a possibility
that in the older subjects, naturally occurring cognitive impairments
could have affected the odor identification test, causing low
identification, TDI scores, and the final diagnosis of olfactory
dysfunction. Therefore, we suggest that in older patients, the threshold
subset score should be carefully reviewed when interpreting olfactory
function tests, and clinicians should consider performing a gustatory
function test regardless of the patient's subjective symptoms.

In this study, the prevalence of objective gustatory dysfunction in
patients subjectively complaining of chemosensory dysfunction was 17.8\%
(39 out of 219 patients). In a previous study, Deems et al. reported
that the prevalence of taste loss was 8.7\% among patients with
complaints concerning smell and taste.\textsuperscript{9} These studies
imply that a few subjects who complained of chemosensory discomfort were
objectively diagnosed with gustatory dysfunction. However, the results
of these studies on gustatory dysfunction are heterogeneous, which might
be due to the heterogeneity of the applied gustatory function test. This
study applied the chemical gustatory function test based on the various
concentrations of five taste solutions and the application of the
solutions. The study by Deems et al. utilized a whole-mouth test, which
used suprathreshold concentrations of liquid taste
solutions.\textsuperscript{9} Filter paper discs/strips impregnated with
a taste solution are also frequently utilized in other
countries.\textsuperscript{19} Although these chemical gustatory
function tests are regarded to be `objective' function tests, there is a
possibility that these are not really `objective' tests. These tests
enable the numerical measurement of gustatory function and are
objectively compared with a patient's subjective complaints. However,
subjective factors, such as a patient's will, could be involved during
the test procedure. Furthermore, there was a previous study where the
correlation level was low even among the currently applied `objective'
gustatory function tests.\textsuperscript{20} Although more objective
gustatory function tests, such as a functional MRI or gustatory evoked
potentials, have been introduced, they cannot be commonly applied in the
usual clinical field.\textsuperscript{9,17} Future studies with larger
populations based on a single gustatory function test procedures are
needed to suggest further the actual prevalence and characteristics of
objective gustatory dysfunction in patients with subjective chemosensory
impairments.

This study has several limitations. First, this was a retrospective
study based on electronic medical records. Second, this study did not
consider all possible candidate factors that could have affected
objective gustatory dysfunction. Although the study tried to collect a
lot of information, including previously diagnosed medical history and
smoking history, other factors, such as burning mouth syndrome and
previous medication histories, were not evaluated. Finally, a chemical
gustatory function test, which only diagnosed the patient's quantitative
function, was applied. Since the currently applied gustatory function
test sums up the score of five taste solutions, the final diagnosis was
based on the summed recognition threshold score. Therefore, qualitative
gustatory dysfunction, such as parageusia, was not considered in this
study.

\textbf{5. Conclusion}

Objective gustatory dysfunction did not correlate with subjective
gustatory symptoms. Age, sex (male), and objective olfactory
dysfunctions were significant factors in objective gustatory dysfunction
in patients complaining of chemosensory discomfort. Furthermore, the
threshold subset score of the olfactory function test was significantly
associated with objective gustatory dysfunction in older patients. We
suggest that these characteristics must be understood, and clinicians
should apply a gustatory function test in patients who are potential
candidates for gustatory dysfunction regardless of subjective
discomfort.

\textbf{References}

1. Spotten LE, Corish CA, Lorton CM, Ui Dhuibhir PM, O'Donoghue NC,
O'Connor B, et al. Subjective and objective taste and smell changes in
cancer. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:969-84.

2. Rawal S, Hoffman HJ, Bainbridge KE, Huedo-Medina TB, Duffy VB.
Prevalence and Risk Factors of Self-Reported Smell and Taste
Alterations: Results from the 2011-2012 US National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES). Chem Senses. 2016;41:69-76.

3. Hunt JD, Reiter ER, Costanzo RM. Etiology of subjective taste loss.
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9:409-12.

4. Bhattacharyya N, Kepnes LJ. Contemporary assessment of the prevalence
of smell and taste problems in adults. Laryngoscope. 2015;125:1102-6.

5. Croy I, Nordin S, Hummel T. Olfactory disorders and quality of
life--an updated review. Chem Senses. 2014;39:185-94.

6. Malaty J, Malaty IA. Smell and taste disorders in primary care. Am
Fam Physician. 2013 15;88:852-9.

7. Soter A, Kim J, Jackman A, Tourbier I, Kaul A, Doty RL. Accuracy of
self-report in detecting taste dysfunction. Laryngoscope.
2008;118:611-7.

8. Wekge-Lussen A, Dorig P, Wolfensberger M, Krone F, Hummel T. A study
about the frequency of taste disorders. J Neurol. 2011;258:386-92.

9. Deems DA, Doty RL, Settle RG, Moore-Gillon V, Shaman P, Mester AF, et
al. Smell and taste disorders, a study of 750 patients from the
University of Pennsylvania Smell and Taste Center. Arch Otolaryngol Head
Neck Surg. 1991;117:519-28.

10. Pribitkin E, Rosenthal MD, Cowart BJ. Prevalence and causes of
severe taste loss in a chemosensory clinic population. Ann Otol Rhinol
Laryngol. 2003;112:971-8.

11. Vennemann MM, Hummel T, Berger K. The association between smoking
and smell and taste impairment in the general population. J Neurol.
2008;255:1121-6.

12. Park YJ, Kho HS. Relationship between subjective taste sensations
and taste strip test in patients with taste disorders with and without
burning mouth syndrome. J Dent Sci. 2022;17:1528-37.

13. Ha JG, Kim J, Nam JS, Park JJ, Cho HJ, Yoon JH, et al. Development
of a Korean Culture-Friendly Olfactory Function Test and Optimization of
a Diagnostic Cutoff Value. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;13:274-84.

14. Hwang CS, Kim JW, Al Sharhan SS, Kim JW, Cho HJ, Yoon JH, et al.
Development of a Gustatory Function Test for Clinical Application in
Korean Subjects. Yonsei Med J. 2018;59:325-30.

15. Mauri-Obradors E, Estrugo-Devesa A, Jane-Salas E, Vinas M,
Lopez-Lopez J. Oral manifestations of Diabetes Mellitus. A systematic
review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2017;22:e586-e94.

16. Lessa LS, Pires PD, Ceretta RA, Becker IRT, Ceretta LB, Tuon L, et
al. Meta-Analysis of Prevalence of Xerostomia in Diabetes Mellitus. Int.
Arch. Med. 2015;224:1-13.

17. Nazir MA, AlGhamdi L, AlKadi M, AlBeajan N, AlRashoudi L, AlHussan
M. The burden of

Diabetes, Its Oral Complications and Their Prevention and Management.
Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci. 2018;6:1545-53.

18. Hummel T, Podlesek D. Clinical assessment of olfactory function.
Chem Senses. 2021;46:1-12.

19. Ikui A. A review of objective measures of gustatory function. Acta
Otolaryngol Suppl. 2002;546:60-8.

20. Kang MG, Choi JH, Kho HS. Relationships between gustatory function
tests. Oral Dis. 2020;26:830-7.

\textbf{Tables}

\textbf{Table 1} . Baseline characteristics and statistical differences
between the normal and impaired gustatory function groups\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Normal gustatory function (\emph{n} = 180)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Gustatory dysfunction (\emph{n} = 39)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{p}-value\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Age\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Age\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
46.0 (18.8)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
56.5 (18.1)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.0016\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Sex\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Male\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
108 (60\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
32 (82.1\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.01\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Female\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
72 (40\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
7 (17.9\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Diabetes\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Yes\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
9 (5\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
9 (23.1\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.001\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
No\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
171 (95\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
30 (76.9\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Hypertension\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Yes\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
32 (17.8\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
11 (28.2\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.180\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
No\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
148 (82.2\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
28 (71.8\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Smoking\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Yes\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
66 (36.7\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
18 (46.2\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.281\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
No\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
114 (63.3\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
21 (53.8\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Subjective olfactory function\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Subjective olfactory function\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Subjective olfactory function\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Normosmia\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Normosmia\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
15 (8.3\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
15 (38.5\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Hyposmia\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Hyposmia\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
36 (20\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
10 (25.6\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Anosmia\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Anosmia\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
129 (71.7\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
14 (35.9\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Objective olfactory function\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Objective olfactory function\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Objective olfactory function\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.041\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Normosmia\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Normosmia\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
78 (43.3\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
18 (46.2\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Hyposmia\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Hyposmia\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
33 (18.3\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
13 (33.3\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Anosmia\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Anosmia\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
69 (38.4\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
8 (20.5\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Olfactory function test\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Olfactory function test\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Threshold score\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Threshold score\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
4.18 (2.63)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
2.10 (2.28)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Discrimination score\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Discrimination score\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
7.62 (1.82)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
5.72 (1.99)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Identification score\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Identification score\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
10.19 (2.61)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
7.23 (3.24)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
TDI score\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
TDI score\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
21.90 (5.28)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
15.28 (6.58)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

TDI; threshold-discrimination-identification. The counts are given for
the categorical variables, and the means (with standard deviations) are
given for the continuous variables of the patients.

\textbf{Table 2} . Multivariate logistic regression analyses of the
demographic and clinical characteristics regarding objectively diagnosed
gustatory dysfunction\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Parameter\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Univariate\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Univariate\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Multivariate\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Multivariate\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Odds Ratio (95\% CI)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{p}-value\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Odds Ratio (95\% CI)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{p}-value\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Age\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.032 (1.011--1.053)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.002\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.033 (1.009--1.059)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.008\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Sex\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
3.048 (1.276--7.278)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.012\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
5.849 (2.239--17.335)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.0006\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Diabetes\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
5.700 (2.093--15.527)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.0006\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Hypertension\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.817 (0.820--4.025)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.14\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Smoking\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.285 (0.829--1.992)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.26\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Subjective olfaction\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.334 (0.213--0.524)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Objective olfaction\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.763 (0.510--1.142)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.189\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
2.047 (1.065--4.302)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.042\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Threshold score\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.650 (0.543--0.778)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.661 (0.501--0.845)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.002\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Discrimination score\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.605 (0.496--0.738)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.695 (0.533--0.886)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.005\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Identification score\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.747 (0.669--0.835)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
TDI score\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.851 (0.804--0.901)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

TDI; threshold-discrimination-identification, CI; confidence interval

\textbf{Table 3} . Multivariate logistic regression analyses of the
demographic and clinical characteristics for objective gustatory
function according to age\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Parameter\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Univariate\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Univariate\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Multivariate\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Multivariate\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Odds Ratio (95\% CI)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{p}-value\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Odds Ratio (95\% CI)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{p}-value\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Age \textless{} 60 years\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Age \textless{} 60 years\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Age \textless{} 60 years\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Age \textless{} 60 years\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Age \textless{} 60 years\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Sex\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
2.729 (0.754--9.868)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.13\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
4.333 (1.149--21.971)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.046\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Hypertension\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.273 (0.269--6.242)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.77\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Smoking\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.357 (0.723--2.547)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.34\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Subjective smell\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.274 (0.148--0.509)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Objective smell\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.695 (0.402--1.200)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.19\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
2.463 (0.986--7.726)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.078\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Threshold\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.595 (0.461--0.768)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.627 (0.417--0.877)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.013\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Discrimination\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.565 (0.434--0.735)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.629 (0.432--0.880)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.010\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Identification\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.733 (0.632--0.850)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
TDI\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.837 (0.777--0.902)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textless{}0.0001\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Age [?] 60 years\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Age [?] 60 years\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Age [?] 60 years\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Age [?] 60 years\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Age [?] 60 years\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Sex\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
5.091 (1.488--17.413)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.009\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
5.054 (1.530--20.337)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.012\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Diabetes\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
2.453 (0.763--7.890)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.13\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Hypertension\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.130 (0.397--3.212)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.82\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Smoking\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.206 (0.651--2232)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.55\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Subjective smell\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.468 (0.236--0.928)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.03\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Objective smell\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.907 (0.467--1.761)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.77\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Threshold\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.728 (0.555--0.955)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.02\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.736 (0.546--0.959)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.0312\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Discrimination\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.724 (0.525--0.998)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.05\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Identification\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.796 (0.668--0.948)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.01\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
TDI\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.888 (0.809--0.974)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.01\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

TDI; threshold-discrimination-identification, CI: confidence interval

\textbf{Figure legends}

Figure 1. Violin plots for the continuous variables (age, threshold,
discrimination, identification, and TDI score) for subjective gustatory
function (A) and objective gustatory function (B). To provide more
information, small box plots were added inside the violin plots.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/20230621-Figure-1/20230621-Figure-1}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

