Evidence Hub

A systematic review with a Burden of Proof meta-analysis of health effects of long-term ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure on dementia

Xin-Mei Huang, Jaimie D Steinmetz, Elizabeth K. Marsh, A. Aravkin, Charlie Ashbaugh, Christopher J. L. Murray, F. Yang, John S. Ji et al.

Nature Aging, 2025

49 participants · 62 citations

Abstract

Previous studies have indicated increased dementia risk associated with fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure; however, the findings are inconsistent. In this systematic review, we assessed the association between long-term PM2.5 exposure and dementia outcomes using the Burden of Proof meta-analytic framework, which relaxes log-linear assumptions to better characterize relative risk functions and quantify unexplained between-study heterogeneity (PROSPERO, ID CRD42023421869). Here we report a meta-analysis of 28 longitudinal cohort studies published up to June 2023 that investigated long-term PM2.5 exposure and dementia outcomes. We derived risk–outcome scores (ROSs), highly conservative measures of effect size and evidence strength, mapped onto a 1–5-star rating from ‘weak and/or inconsistent evidence’ to ‘very strong and/or consistent evidence’. We identified a significant nonlinear relationship between PM2.5 exposure and dementia, with a minimum 14% increased risk averaged across PM2.5 levels between 4.5 and 26.9 µg m−3 (the 15th to 85th percentile exposure range across included studies), relative to a reference of 2.0 µg m−3 (n = 49, ROS = 0.13, two stars). We found a significant association of PM2.5 with Alzheimer’s disease (n = 12, ROS = 0.32, three stars) but not with vascular dementia. Our findings highlight the potential impact of air pollution on brain aging. A systematic review with a Burden of Proof meta-analysis reporting a nonlinear relationship between…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 49 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free