SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Neuroexposomics to Prevent Neurodegenerative Disease: Challenges, Next Steps, and Recommendations

· 2026-08-31

DOI: 10.20944/preprints202608.2189.v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Neuroexposome research investigates associations between physical, chemical, biological, and psychosocial factors and neurological health. It offers great potential to be meaningfully translated into reductions in the incidence of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. Current translational efforts focus on reducing exposure to identified risk factors through policy or behavior change. Here, we offer a more comprehensive framework for environmental and brain health communities to translate neuroexposomics into public health improvements, based on two premises: 1) Exposome risks are linked to multiple neurodegenerative diseases, therefore prevention efforts arising from neuroexposome research should adopt a multi-disease approach with composite endpoints; and 2) Neuroexposome research translation should consider all possible interventions, not limiting itself to decreased exposure of the risk factors only. A strategy to develop interventions to reduce the incidence of multiple neurodegenerative diseases by blocking harms identified through neuroexposome research is feasible and needed. After describing key challenges hindering the translational pipeline for these mitigations, we advocate for increased research capacity and funding to support large-scale confirmatory studies.

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.