Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Abstract Background Cross-sectional evidence implicates sunlight exposure is associated with the risk of Parkinson's disease (PD), whereas the evidence from prospective studies is scarce. Methods A cohort study based on UK Biobank enrolled participants between 2006 and 2010, with the latest follow-up in November 2022. In the prospective population-based study 375,599 UK adults aged 37–73 years were enrolled. The outdoor light time was assessed using a questionnaire survey to investigate how many hours were spent outdoors on typical summer and winter days. New-onset PD was identified through linkage with inpatient hospitalization and death registers. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used. The polygenic risk score (PRS) for PD comprised 44 single-nucleotide variants. Results A total of 375,599 participants (mean age, 56.8 years; 46.3% males) were included, and 2,824 individuals were first-ever diagnosed with PD. Compared with the individuals with shorter outdoor light time, those with longer time in summer (HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68–0.88), in winter (HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75–0.96), and on average (HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74–0.93), were prone to have lower PD risk. There is no interaction between outdoor light time and genetic predisposition in PD. In mediation analyses, physical activities explained 13.24%, 25.72%, and 15.55% of the associations between outdoor light time and PD, respectively. Conclusion In this cohort study, a longer duration of outdoor light exposure was associated with a lower risk of PD, and independent of genetic risk of PD. This association is partly mediated by physical activity, vitamin D, and sleep patterns.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.