SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Ambient Air Pollution and Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

Toxics · 2025-02-15

DOI: 10.3390/toxics13020139PMID: 39997954

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundPrevious epidemiological evidence regarding the associations between ambient air pollution and two major neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD), remains inconclusive.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the associations between long-term and short-term exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 (i.e., particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of, or smaller than, 2.5 μm or 10 μm), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide and the risks of AD and PD.MethodsA random-effects model was used to summarize individual effect estimates in the meta-analysis. A subgroup meta-analysis was further conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity.ResultsIn total, 42 eligible studies were included. For each 5 μg/m3 increase in long-term PM2.5 exposure, the odds ratios (ORs) were 1.16 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.30; I2 = 95%) and 1.10 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.17; I2 = 95%) for AD and PD, respectively. For each 5 μg/m3 increase in short-term PM2.5 exposure, the OR was 1.01 (95% CI: 1.002, 1.01; I2 = 77%) for PD. For each 1 ppb increase in long-term NO2 exposure, the OR was 1.01 (95% CI: 1.0002, 1.02; I2 = 79%) for PD.ConclusionAmbient air pollution, particularly PM2.5, may contribute to the increased risks of neurodegenerative diseases including AD and PD.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.