Home › Research › Risk factors
Comparison of Particulate Air Pollution From Different Emission Sources and Incident Dementia in the US
Zhang B, Weuve J, Langa KM, D'Souza J, Szpiro A, Faul J, Mendes de Leon C, Gao J et al.. JAMA internal medicine, 2023-10-01
Topic: Air pollution and environmental exposures
Importance Emerging evidence indicates that exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution may increase dementia risk in older adults. Results Among 27 857 participants (mean [SD] age, 61 [10] years; 15 747 [56.5%] female), 4105 (15%) developed dementia during a mean (SD) follow-up of 10.2 [5.6] years. Higher concentrations of total PM2.5 were associated with greater rates of incident dementia (HR, 1.08 per IQR; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17). In single pollutant models, PM2.5 from all sources, except dust, were associated with increased rates of dementia, with the strongest associations for agriculture, traffic, coal combustion, and wildfires. After control for PM2.5 from all other sources and copollutants, only PM2.5 from agriculture (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.27) and wildfires (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08) were robustly associated with greater rates of dementia. Conclusion and relevance In this cohort study, higher residential PM2.5 levels, especially from agriculture and wildfires, were associated with higher rates of incident dementia, providing further evidence supporting PM2.5 reduction as a population-based approach to promote healthy cognitive aging. These findings also indicate that intervening on key emission sources might have value, although more research is needed to confirm these findings.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zhang, B., Weuve, J., Langa, K. M., D'Souza, J., Szpiro, A., Faul, J., et al. (2023). Comparison of Particulate Air Pollution From Different Emission Sources and Incident Dementia in the US. JAMA internal medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.3300
Vancouver
Zhang B, Weuve J, Langa KM, D'Souza J, Szpiro A, Faul J, et al. Comparison of Particulate Air Pollution From Different Emission Sources and Incident Dementia in the US. JAMA internal medicine. 2023. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.3300. PMID: 37578757.
BibTeX
@article{zhang2023-37578757,
author = {Zhang, B. and Weuve, J. and Langa, K. M. and D'Souza, J. and Szpiro, A. and Faul, J. and Mendes de Leon, C. and Gao, J. and others},
title = {{Comparison of Particulate Air Pollution From Different Emission Sources and Incident Dementia in the US}},
journal = {JAMA internal medicine},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.3300},
pmid = {37578757},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.3300}
}
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
- Importance Emerging evidence indicates that exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution may increase dementia risk in older adults.
- Results Among 27 857 participants (mean [SD] age, 61 [10] years; 15 747 [56.5%] female), 4105 (15%) developed dementia during a mean (SD) follow-up of 10.2 [5.6] years.
- Higher concentrations of total PM2.5 were associated with greater rates of incident dementia (HR, 1.08 per IQR; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17).
- In single pollutant models, PM2.5 from all sources, except dust, were associated with increased rates of dementia, with the strongest associations for agriculture, traffic, coal combustion, and wildfires.
- After control for PM2.5 from all other sources and copollutants, only PM2.5 from agriculture (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.27) and wildfires (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08) were robustly associated with greater rates of dementia.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants27
- Effect size56.5%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 69/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA internal medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 27 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 37578757) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 40 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100. |
| Total | 69 / 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.