https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3823377/pdf/nih...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3823377/pdf/nih...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4167392/pdf/nih...
> Results: The mean odor detection distance of AD patients’ left nostril (5.1 cm), and not their right (17.4 cm), was significantly less (F(3,90) = 22.28, p < 0.0001) than the other groups. The mean, standard error, and 95% Confidence Interval of the L R nostril odor detection difference (cm) for AD was −12.4 ±0.5, (−15.0, −9.8); for MCI was −1.9 ±1.2, (−4.2,0.4); for OD was 4.8 ±1.0, (2.6,6.9); and for OC was 0.0 ±1.4 (−2.2,2.1).
But we'll also have machines that measure out the dosages. And possibly a few controls. Plus we'll have to adjust for folks that have an exceptional sense of smell. And come to think about it, we'll need to make sure we have baseline sensitivity levels at different ages to base the test result on. We'll have to account for folks that have sensitive sense of smells, which could be a large problem for controls. Not only that, but we'll need to check for signs of a stroke and the many other things that can cause one to lose one's sense of smell.
On second thought, I'm much more likely to support the more expensive test and hope they invent a simple blood test as it seems to narrow things down further.
Yet, as long as the errors are overwhelming at the false positive side, it can be used to reduce the number of the more expensive test.