The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sex Differences in Human Olfaction: A Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Although the view that women's olfactory abilities outperform men's is taken for granted, some studies involving large samples suggested that male and female olfactory abilities are actually similar. To address this discrepancy, we conducted a meta-analysis of existing studies on olfaction, targeting possible sex differences. The analyzed sample comprised n = 8 848 (5 065 women and 3 783 men) for olfactory threshold (as measured with the Sniffin Sticks Test; SST), n = 8 067 (4 496 women and 3 571 men) for discrimination (SST), n = 13 670 (7 501 women and 6 169 men) for identification (SST), and a total sample of n = 7 154 (3 866 women and 3 288 men) for works using University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). We conducted separate meta-analyses for each aspect of olfaction: identification, discrimination and threshold. The results of our meta-analysis indicate that women generally outperform men in olfactory abilities. What is more, they do so in every aspect of olfaction analyzed in the current study. However, the effect sizes were weak and ranged between g = 0.08 and g = 0.30. We discuss our findings in the context of factors that potentially shape sex differences in olfaction. Nevertheless, although our findings seem to confirm the “common knowledge” on female olfactory superiority, it needs to be emphasized that the effect sizes we observed were notably small.
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
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367 · Cited by 3,723
Hummel, T., Sekinger, B., Wolf, S. R., Pauli, E., & Kobal, G. (1997) · Chemical Senses · doi:10.1093/chemse/22.1.39 · Cited by 2,501
Self-citationDoty, R. L., Shaman, P., & Dann, M. (1984) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/0031-9384(84)90269-5 · Cited by 1,854
Hummel, T., Kobal, G., Gudziol, H., & Mackay-Sim, A. (2007) · European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology · doi:10.1007/s00405-006-0173-0 · Cited by 1,484
Self-citationCelermajer, D. S., Sorensen, K. E., Spiegelhalter, D. J., Georgakopoulos, D., Robinson, J., & Deanfield, J. E. (1994) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/0735-1097(94)90305-0 · Cited by 1,335
A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007.
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0017504 · Cited by 931
Doty, R. L., Shaman, P., Kimmelman, C. P., & Dann, M. S. (1984) · The Laryngoscope · doi:10.1288/00005537-198402000-00004 · Cited by 878
Metadata
- Authors
- Sorokowski, P., Karwowski, M., Misiak, M., Marczak, M. K., Dziekan, M., Hummel, T., & Sorokowska, A.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2019-02-13
- Volume
- 10
- Pages
- 242-242
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2912375542
- Cited by
- 422
- References
- 67
- FWCI
- 7.65
- 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: Sex Differences in Human Olfaction: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00242
- The paper
- Sorokowski, P., Karwowski, M., Misiak, M., Marczak, M. K., Dziekan, M., Hummel, T., & Sorokowska, A. (2019). Sex Differences in Human Olfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00242
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.