The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Human Sense of Smell: Are We Better Than We Think?
Open accessAbstract
Gordon Shepherd challenges the notion - based on genetic evidence - that olfaction is less well developed in humans as compared to other mammals
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The olfactory receptor gene superfamily of the mouse
Zhang, X., & Firestein, S. (2002) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn800 · Cited by 902
An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy
(2002) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-02515-x · Cited by 733
The Complete Human Olfactory Subgenome
Glusman, G., Yanai, I., Rubin, I., & Lancet, D. (2001) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.171001 · Cited by 700
Gilad, Y., Wiebe, V., Przeworski, M., Lancet, D., & Pääbo, S. (2004) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020005 · Cited by 475
The Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Nose and Paranasal Sinuses
(1959) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1959.tb129129.x · Cited by 376
The human olfactory receptor repertoire
Zozulya, S., Echeverri, F., & Nguyen, T. (2001) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2001-2-6-research0018 · Cited by 360
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution
Harcourt, A., Jones, S., Martin, R., & Pilbeam, D. (1995) · The Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.2307/5660 · Cited by 316
Different evolutionary processes shaped the mouse and human olfactory receptor gene families
Young, J. M. (2002) · Human Molecular Genetics · doi:10.1093/hmg/11.5.535 · Cited by 312
‘Cooking as a biological trait’
Wrangham, R., & Conklin-Brittain, N. (2003) · Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology · doi:10.1016/s1095-6433(03)00020-5 · Cited by 294
An autoradiographic study of the mouse olfactory epithelium: Evidence for long‐lived receptors
Hinds, J. W., Hinds, P. L., & McNelly, N. A. (1984) · The Anatomical Record · doi:10.1002/ar.1092100213 · Cited by 271
Cited by
Concerted and Birth-and-Death Evolution of Multigene Families
Nei, M., & Rooney, A. P. (2005) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.39.073003.112240 · Cited by 1,298
The evolution of animal chemosensory receptor gene repertoires: roles of chance and necessity
Nei, M., Niimura, Y., & Nozawa, M. (2008) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2480 · Cited by 621
Odor Coding by a Mammalian Receptor Repertoire
Saito, H., Chi, Q., Zhuang, H., Matsunami, H., & Mainland, J. D. (2009) · Science Signaling · doi:10.1126/scisignal.2000016 · Cited by 572
Sensors for Volatile Organic Compounds
Khatib, M., & Haick, H. (2022) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/acsnano.1c10827 · Cited by 533
Poor human olfaction is a 19th-century myth
McGann, J. P. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aam7263 · Cited by 500
Metadata
- Authors
- Shepherd, G. M.
- Venue
- PLoS Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2004-05-11
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e146
- ISSN
- 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-7885
- OpenAlex
- W1982814660
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 5.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Human Sense of Smell: Are We Better Than We Think? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020146
- The paper
- Shepherd, G. M. (2004). The Human Sense of Smell: Are We Better Than We Think? PLoS Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020146
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
