## 3 Results
### Assessment of Olfactory and Gustatory Function
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Controls** & **Hypos** & **Hypogeu** \\  & **(n = 68)** & **(n = 22)** & **(n = 21)** \\ \hline Age (years) & 32.4 \(\pm\) 13.4 & 42.5 \(\pm\) 22.1 * & 37.1 \(\pm\) 18.8 \\ Sex & 46 Women/22 Men & 13 Women/9 Men & 7 Women/14 Men \\ Weight (kg) & 65.6 \(\pm\) 13.9 & 68.7 \(\pm\) 17.4 & 71.8 \(\pm\) 12.5 \\ Height (m) & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ BMI & 24.0 \(\pm\) 4.7 & 25.2 \(\pm\) 6.2 & 25.9 \(\pm\) 4.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Legend: BMI = body mass index. Significant differences between groups (Two-way ANOVA adjusted with the Bonferroni Multiple Comparisons Test): * \(p<0.05\) versus Controls.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Demographic and clinical parameters of healthy participants (Controls), participants with hyposmia (Hypos), and with hypogeusia (Hypogeu) enrolled to assess Mittamaro odor and taste. descriptors than subjects with hyposmia and hypogesusia such as the presence of specific aromas (licorice, juniper, chinotto, orange, woody, spicy, mint, etc.). However, all groups individuated the note of aromatic herbs. Concerning the taste subjective perceived attributes (flavor) of Mirtoamaro (Table 3), most participants belonging to all groups individuated bittermess as the main taste perception (the attributes were bitter or very bitter), indicating an initial sweet taste perception  
Figure 3: Mean values \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD) of odor threshold (OThr), odor discrimination (ODi, odor identification (Old) (**a**), sweet, salty, sour, and bitter taste perception (**b**) measured in healthy participants (Controls, n = 68) and participants with hyposmia (Hypos, n = 22) and hypogesusia (Hypogeu, n = 21). Significant differences between groups (Two-way ANOVA adjusted with the Bonferroni Multiple Comparisons Test): *** \(p<0.001\), * \(p<0.05\) versus Controls; \({}^{\$}\)\(p<0.01\), \({}^{\$}\)\(p<0.05\) versus participants with hyposmia. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Subjects** & **Sensory Input** & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Sensory Perceived Attributes**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Ctrl} & \multirow{3}{*}{Odor} & Liqueur; bitter liqueur; myrtle; herbs; alcohol; bitter; very bitter; chinotto; licorice; juniper; berries; orange; woody; spicy; nicotine; coffee; Sambuca; medication; pungent; natural essences; rum; coffee; balsamic herbs; orange; mint. \\  & & \begin{tabular}{c} Bitter liqueur; myrtle berries; myrtle; bitter; very bitter; spicy; alcohol; strong; bitter myrtle; wine; herbs note; _Citrus_ note; sour; initially sweet, then very bitter; strong; chinotto aftertaste; slightly bitter; honey4 aftertaste; chinotto aftertaste; chinotto aftertaste; chinotto aftertaste; chinine; Sambuca. \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Hypos} & \multirow{3}{*}{Odor} & Bitter liqueur; aromatic bitter liqueur; licorice; Sambuca; alcohol; Marsala; aromatic herbs; medication; spicy. \\  & & \begin{tabular}{c} Taste \\ \end{tabular} & Very bitter; bitter; very bitter with a sour note; bitter liqueur; whisky; propolis; rum; sweet; sweet \\  & & \
\begin{tabular}{c} with caramelized aftertaste; initially sweet, then bitter. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Hypogeu & \multirow{3}{*}{Odor} & Liqueur; myrtle; alcohol; bitter; bitter liqueur; spirit; aromatic herbs; natural essences; Marsala. \\  & &
\begin{tabular}{c} Sweet; sweet with caramelized aftertaste; bitter; myrtle; alcohol; spirit; initially sweet, then \\ bitter; liquor. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Odor (aromatic) and taste (flavor) perceived attributes of the myrtle herbal liqueur (Mirtamaro) measured in healthy participants (Controls, n = 68), participants with hyposmia (Hypos, n = 22) and hypogesusia (Hypogeu, n = 21). followed by a bitter taste. Moreover, all groups recognized the occurrence of myrtle extract and alcohol.