## 3 Results
### Utility of Self-Ratings for Olfactory Diagnosis Establishment  
The optimal breakpoints for determining the clinical olfactory diagnosis, known from the TDI test result from the self-ratings, differed with respect to the two self-rating scales and the sex of the patient (Supplemental Figure S2). For self-assessment score 1 and men, the obtained assignment rule was \"IF self-assessment \(<\) 2 THEN anosmia ELSE IF self-assessment \(<\) 4 THEN hyposmia ELSE normosmia\". For women, the breakpoints were at scores 1 and 3, respectively. For self-assessment score 2, the respective values were 4 and 7 for men and 3 and 5 for women. Using these rules in a 1000-resampling scenario provided the assignment performance measures and their 95% CI (Table 3). The median assignment performance appeared to be satisfactory with balanced accuracies of 69.5-75.3%. However, the first of the lower bounds of the 95% CIs of 49.5, 54.6, 56.5, and 61.5% indicated that the assignment of the three TDI-based clinical olfactory diagnoses from the self-assessments may also be in the range of pure guessing. The median assignment performance improved when combining both self-rating scores. Using the rule \"IF ratingscale #1 \(<\) 2 AND ratingscale #2 \(<\) 4 THEN anosmia ELSE IF ratingscale #1 \(<\) 5 AND ratingscale #2 \(<\) 7 THEN hyposmia ELSE normosmia\" in men provided median balanced accuracies mostly above 70% for the entire three-diagnosis setting as well as for each olfactory diagnosis alone, occasionally reaching 80% or more and with 95% CIs always \(>\) 50%. The respective breakpoints in the rule for women were 2, 3, 4, 5, providing similarly successful assignments as observed in men (Table 3).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & **Three** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Anosmia**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Hyposmia**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Normosmia**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Three**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Anosmia**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Hyposmia**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Normosmia**} \\  & & & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{8}{c}{Men} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{Women} \\ Rating scale 1 & 60 & 75.7 & 42 & 60 (25–90) & 59.3 & 58.3 & 54.1 & 71.4 \\ Sensitivity, recall & (29.4–87.2) & (60.6–87.5) & (28.6–55.1) & 60 (25–90) & (41.2–90) & (45.3–72.3) & (39.5–69.1) & (40–100) \\  & 78.1 & 80 & 72.2 & 80.2 & 76.8 & 96.7 & 69.2 & 75.3 \\ Specificity & (61.9–88.7) & (69.4–90.3) & (58.5–84.5) & (72–88.8) & (60.8–100) & (00.7–100) & (57.6–81) & (66.3–83.9) \\  & 692 & 61.5 & 53 & 539 & 58.3 & 26.9 \\ Positive predictive value, precision & (55.3–83.8) & (44.4–76.9) & 25 (8.7–44.0) & (16.1–100) & 95 (84–100) & (38.9–69.2) & (12.5–44.4) \\ Negative predictive value & 84.4 & 84.5 & 53 & 94.7 & 74.1 & 71.4 & 69.4 & 95.5 \\  & (44.6–98.5) & (73.9–92.2) & (41.4–65.7) & (88.6–98.7) & (59.7–98.6) & (60.6–81.5) & (57.6–97.7) & (90–100) \\ F1 & 51.1 (20–80) & 72 (60–82.1) & 50 & 35.9 & 54.5 & 72.4 & 53.8 & 38.9 \\  & 69.5 & 77.5 & 56.8 & 70.4 & 72 & 77.7 & 61.7 & 63.7 \\ Balanced Accuracy & (49.5–84.6) & (68.8–85.5) & (47–65.7) & (53–86.1) & (54.6–85.1) & (70–48.5) & (52.4–71) & (58.4–87.5) \\ Rating scale 2 & & & & & & & \\ Sensitivity, recall & (26.6–94.3) & (74.2–97.1) & (38.9–68.