Home › Research › Risk factors
Causal association between particulate matter 2.5 and Alzheimer's disease: a Mendelian randomization study
Meijuan Dang, Ye Li, Lili Zhao, Tao Li, Ziwei Lu, Jialiang Lu, Yuxuan Feng, Yang Yang et al.. Frontiers in public health, 2024-05-30
Topic: Air pollution and environmental exposures
Our MR analysis identified a notable association between genetically predicted PM2.5 (PM with a diameter of 2.5 μm or less) exposure and an elevated risk of AD (odds ratio, 2.160; 95% confidence interval, 1.481 to 3.149; p < 0.001). A sensitivity analysis supported the robustness of the observed association, thus alleviating concerns related to pleiotropy. No discernible causal relationship was identified between PM and any other neurodegenerative diseases. MVMR analyses-adjusting for smoking, alcohol use, education, stroke, hearing loss, depression, and hypertension-confirmed a persistent causal relationship between PM2.5 and AD. Sensitivity analyses, including MR-Egger and weighted median analyses, also supported this causal association. The present MR study provides evidence to support a plausible causal connection between PM2.5 exposure and AD. The results emphasize the importance of contemplating air quality interventions as a public health strategy for reducing AD risk.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Dang, M., Li, Y., Zhao, L., Li, T., Lu, Z., Lu, J., et al. (2024). Causal association between particulate matter 2.5 and Alzheimer's disease: a Mendelian randomization study. Frontiers in public health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1343915
Vancouver
Dang M, Li Y, Zhao L, Li T, Lu Z, Lu J, et al. Causal association between particulate matter 2.5 and Alzheimer's disease: a Mendelian randomization study. Frontiers in public health. 2024. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1343915. PMID: 38873321.
BibTeX
@article{dang2024-38873321,
author = {Dang, Meijuan and Li, Ye and Zhao, Lili and Li, Tao and Lu, Ziwei and Lu, Jialiang and Feng, Yuxuan and Yang, Yang and others},
title = {{Causal association between particulate matter 2.5 and Alzheimer's disease: a Mendelian randomization study}},
journal = {Frontiers in public health},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.3389/fpubh.2024.1343915},
pmid = {38873321},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1343915}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Our MR analysis identified a notable association between genetically predicted PM2.5 (PM with a diameter of 2.5 μm or less) exposure and an elevated risk of AD (odds ratio, 2.160; 95% confidence interval, 1.481 to 3.149; p < 0.001).
- A sensitivity analysis supported the robustness of the observed association, thus alleviating concerns related to pleiotropy.
- No discernible causal relationship was identified between PM and any other neurodegenerative diseases.
- MVMR analyses-adjusting for smoking, alcohol use, education, stroke, hearing loss, depression, and hypertension-confirmed a persistent causal relationship between PM2.5 and AD.
- Sensitivity analyses, including MR-Egger and weighted median analyses, also supported this causal association.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in public health) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38873321) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 24 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “air”
237 studies in the library carry the topic tag “air”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 237 tagged studies.