Environment-Wide Association Study of Cognitive Function in U.S. Older Adults using the NHANES Data

HyunA Jang, Jiyun Lee, Vy Kim Nguyen, Hyeong-Moo Shin
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.22.24310659

Abstract

Neurodegenerative diseases pose increasing challenges to global aging populations. Cognitive decline in older adults is an initial indicator of neurodegenerative diseases, yet comprehensive research on environmental chemical exposures related to cognitive decline is limited. This study uses Environment-Wide Association Study (EWAS) framework to investigate associations of environmental chemicals with cognitive function in individuals aged ≥60 years. We used the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) scores (lower scores indicate cognitive decline) and chemical biomarker data of the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) spanning four cycles (1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2011-2012, 2013-2014). We conducted multiple survey-weighted regression to identify biomarkers associated with DSST scores, penalized logit regression to estimate odds ratio (OR) of cognitive decline with identified biomarkers, and correlation network analyses to examine relationships among identified biomarkers and cognitive decline. After correction for multiple comparisons, 27 out of 173 biomarkers having a ≥10% detection rate were associated with DSST scores (q-value <0.05). Among them, increased odds of cognitive decline were associated with elevated levels of blood lead (Pb) (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.01,1.42), blood 1,4-dichlorobenzene (1,4-DCB) (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.17, 1.54), and urinary 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.62). Correlation network showed biomarkers that potentially impact cognitive decline upon related health conditions, such as stroke. In conclusion, leveraging the EWAS framework enables us to identify chemical biomarkers that were not previously discovered from traditional approaches of examining a small number of chemicals at a time. While our findings provide foundation for further research, longitudinal studies are warranted to elucidate causal relationships.

Introduction

Increasing incidence of neurodegenerative diseases poses a prominent challenge in societies experiencing global population aging.1 In the United States (U.S.) alone, more than 6.2 million people were affected by neurodegenerative diseases in 2022, including Alzheimer’s disease.2 These diseases accounted for approximately 300,000 deaths and 3 million disability- adjusted life years (DALYs) during 1990-2016.3–5 The prevalence of clinical Alzheimer’s disease among adults aged 65 years and older is projected to increase from 7.2 million in 2025 to 13.9 million in 2060.6 In 2021, the U.S. incurred an annual cost of over $355 billion due to Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, and this societal burden is expected to increase due to the increased health care cost.7 Consequently, there is growing attention towards the identification of risk factors and treatment development for neurodegenerative diseases.8

Neurodegenerative diseases are characterized by the progressive loss of neurons, leading to deterioration in both the structure and function of neural networks.9 This deterioration ultimately leads to impaired cognitive function.1,10 Gradual cognitive decline in old age is typically limited to subtle declines that evolve slowly over the years, attributed to normative developmental processes.11,12 Conversely, mild or precipitous declines in cognitive function can lead to pathological processes underlying Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias.11,13 Thus, early detection of changes in cognitive function, such as mild cognitive impairment, enables timely diagnosis and treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, potentially delaying disease progression.13,14

The risk of cognitive decline generally increases due to a combination of genetic and non-genetic factors. Age and genetic factors, including family history and susceptibility genes such as the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele, are the most significant contributors to cognitive decline.15,16 Other well-known non-genetic risk factors include comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, stroke), unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, smoking, and alcohol consumption.17,18 These risk factors could influence the susceptibility of individual’s cognitive function (e.g., disease onset, timing, severity) by interacting with genetic factors.16,19,20 Therefore, identifying and understanding modifiable risk factors of cognitive decline could be a proactive approach to promoting cognitive health.17,21

Several studies have assessed associations between exposures to environmental chemicals and cognitive decline in specific populations. For example, exposures to metals, typically manganese (Mn),22–24 cadmium (Cd),24–27 lead (Pb),25–27 barium (Ba),24 cobalt (Co),24 cesium (Cs),24 and thallium (TI)24 were reported to increase the risk of low cognitive performance. In addition, higher urinary 3-phenoxybenzoic acid concentrations in adults were associated with cognitive dysfunction28 and it was observed that butyl benzyl phthalate is a potential cognitive-disrupting compound.29 However, previous studies examined exposure to a small number of chemicals or compounds individually in association with cognitive function. In addition, they are neither systematic nor comprehensive.

Environmental-Wide Association Studies (EWAS), derived from Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS), are a useful approach for systematically and comprehensively evaluating associations between hundreds of environmental factors and health outcomes.30 While GWAS aim to identify genetic factors associated with diseases of interest, EWAS focus on assessing environmental factors. Over the past decade, several EWAS studies have been conducted to elucidate the relationship between environmental chemical exposures and health outcomes.31 Frequently-studied health outcomes were type 2 diabetes,30,32,33 obesity,34,35 and blood pressure.36,37 Other outcomes included liver enzymes,38 mental and social well-being,39 testosterone deficiency,40 diabetic retinopathy,41 multiple sclerosis,42 peripheral arterial disease,43 and cardiovascular disease.44 However, no studies have simultaneously and comprehensively examined environmental chemical exposures associated with cognitive decline in older adults.

This study aims to identify environmental chemical biomarkers associated with cognitive decline in U.S. older adults by using the EWAS approach and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data. First, to screen chemicals or their biomarkers, we examined a single association for each biomarker and identified those that were statistically significant after controlling for multiple comparisons. Second, we evaluated the effects of multiple exposures to those identified biomarkers on cognitive decline. Finally, we extracted a correlation network structure to explore potential pathways between chemical exposures and cognitive decline and further assessed the potential mediating effect of other modifiable factors.

2. Methods

2.1. Study population

NHANES is conducted every two years in the U.S. by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Centers for Health Statistics (NCHS). This is a cross- sectional survey designed to assess the health and nutritional status of both adults and children. To obtain a representative sample of the U.S. population, complex, multi-stage, and probability sampling techniques are used. NHANES data are publicly available (at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes) and include individual questionnaires, physical examinations, and laboratory tests. More details on the design and methods of the NHANES data are available elsewhere.45

Our study combined data from four cross-sectional surveys conducted in 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2011-2012, and 2013-2014, each of which included assessments of cognitive function. Targeting older adults (age ≥60 years), our analysis consisted of 4,970 individuals after excluding those with missing cognitive function data (n = 34,774) and those with abnormal urinary creatinine levels (n = 1,191) (Figure 1). The NCHS Ethics Review Board has approved this survey (Protocol #98-12 for NHANES 1999-2002 data, Protocol #2011-17 for NHANES 2011-2014 data), and all participants completed informed consent forms.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

The process of data integration, non-targeted screening, and extended analysis. Data from four cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) were used in this study. Final study subjects and environmental factors included in this study were selected based on specified inclusion and exclusion criteria.

2.2. Cognitive function assessment

In NHANES, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), a subscale of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, was utilized to evaluate primary cognitive processing speed, attention, and working memory.46 Its application aids in determining the presence of cognitive dysfunction across various stages, including preclinical, prodromal, and dementia phases.47,48 Administered in a paper-and-pencil format, this cognitive test requires individuals to match symbols to corresponding numbers based on a provided key.49 The score is the total number of correct matches within 90 to 120 seconds, with lower scores indicating diminished cognitive function.49 Since 1999, NHANES has administered this test in participants aged 60 years and older. This test occurs during face-to-face interviews at the Mobile Examination Center by trained interviewers. Participants have the option to select from English, Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, or Chinese. In this study, we used DSST z-scores when screening chemical biomarkers related to cognitive function and DSST raw scores below the 25th percentile when defining as cognitive decline, as used by NCHS reports50 and other previous studies.51,52

2.3. Measurement of environmental chemical biomarkers

In NHANES, environmental chemical biomarker data were collected from the blood and urine samples of randomly selected participants within specific age groups in a one-third sample. Because detailed biological sample collection methods from NHANES participants vary by cycle,53–56 we used a harmonized and unified version of the NHANES chemical biomonitoring data.57 A total of 381 environmental chemical biomarkers were examined across the four cycles. These chemicals could be grouped as follows: acrylamide (n = 2), aldehydes (n = 13), aromatic amines (n = 16), dietary components (n = 6), dioxins (n = 14), furans (n = 20), metals (n = 29), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (n = 11), personal care & consumer product compounds (PCCPCs) (n = 12), pesticides (n = 55), phosphate flame retardants (PFR) (n = 9), phthalates & plasticizers (n = 14), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (n = 12), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (n = 70), smoking-related compounds (SRCs) (n = 15), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (n = 83). Detailed information, including the number of observations, detection rate, and lower limit of detection (LLOD) value, is given in Table S1 of Supplementary Information. In NHANES, all chemical biomarker concentrations below the LLOD were replaced with the LLOD/√2. The distribution of each biomarker concentration is provided in Table S2. The NHANES website offers detailed laboratory measurement methods and quality control procedures (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/).

2.4. Covariates

We selected 11 covariates which are potential confounding or risk factors for cognitive decline identified in previous studies: sex (men and women), age group (60-64, 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, and ≥80 years), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Mexican American/Hispanic, and others), marital status (married or living with partner, never married, divorced or separated, and widowed), education level (<high school, high school, and >high school), body mass index (<25, 25-<30, 30-<40, and ≥40 kg/m2),58 cotinine level as a proxy of smoking status (<3 and ≥3 ng/mL),59 alcohol consumption (non-drinker and drinker), health conditions (hypertension, diabetes, and stroke). Alcohol consumption and health conditions were ascertained by self-reported questionnaires (variable name in NHANES): “Had at least 12 alcohol drinks/lifetime? (ALQ110)”, “Ever told you had high blood pressure? (BPQ020)”, “Ever told you have diabetes? (DIQ010)” and “Ever told you had a stroke? (MCQ160f)”.

2.5. Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics of participant characteristics were summarized using mean ± standard deviation (SD), number of cases (n), and percentage (%). The differences in DSST scores among each covariate were compared using t-tests and ANOVA. A cognitive decline group (i.e., participants with the lowest 25th percentile DSST scores) and a normal group (i.e., the rest as a reference) were compared using the chi-squared test. All analyses were performed using R version 4.3.1 (R Core Team, https://www.R-project.org/). The critical level of significance was set at α = 0.05.

2.5.1. Screening environmental chemical biomarkers related to cognitive function scores

To screen hundreds of chemical biomarkers that are associated with lower DSST z-scores, we performed an EWAS non-targeted screening approach and identified biomarkers potentially affecting cognitive function. During this step, we used complete-cases data without missing values and considered chemicals with a detection rate of ≥10%. All concentrations were log10- transformed to control a right-skewed distribution and z-standardized. We explored the association between each biomarker and DSST z-scores using multiple survey-weighted regression adjusted for all covariates. To account for the complex survey design, we calculated sample weights following the NHANES guidelines.60 P-values were corrected using the false discovery rate (FDR, q-value) (Figure 1).

2.5.2. Associations between exposure to identified biomarkers and cognitive decline

After identifying chemical biomarkers associated with DSST z-scores from the first step (q-value <0.05), we divided our participants into two groups (a normal group vs. a cognitive decline group) and examined associations of chemical exposures with cognitive decline by only including the identified chemical biomarkers with a detection rate of ≥50% and variance inflation factor (VIF) <10 in the model. We employed a multivariate imputation by chained equations (MICE) technique assuming ‘missing-at-random (MAR)’ to create 10 imputed datasets.61 To reduce imputation bias due to temporal trends in chemical biomarker, we generated imputed data separately for each of the 1999-2002 and 2011-2014 cycles and estimated the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of cognitive decline associated with biomarker levels using penalized logit regression with the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) adjusted for all covariates.

2.5.3. Interactive impact of chemical biomarkers and selected covariates on cognitive decline

To uncover the interactive impact of identified chemical biomarkers and the selected covariates on cognitive decline, we first combined imputed data from both the 1999-2002 and 2011-2014 cycles, focusing solely on chemical biomarkers consistently measured across all cycles. Next, we utilized Gaussian Graphical Models (GGMs) with the desparsified Lasso to derive a partial correlation network structure encompassing the identified chemical biomarkers, cognitive decline, and all covariates. Significant p-values were adjusted using the Holm– Bonferroni method. We selected non-chemical factors exhibiting statistically significant correlation coefficients with cognitive decline. Finally, we conducted stratified analyses on each category of the non-chemical factors to assess their potential as mediators using logistic regression adjusted for other covariates.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of study participants

Overall, 4,970 participants were included in this study, with 1,305 participants classified as the cognitive decline group. Significant differences in DSST z-scores were observed across all covariates (Table 1). Men had lower DSST z-scores than women, and Mexican Americans/Hispanics or widowed individuals had the lowest z-scores. DSST z-scores tended to decrease with increasing age or lower education levels. Smokers scored lower than non-smokers, whereas participants who consumed alcohol scored higher than those who never drank alcohol. No trend was observed with changes in BMI.

View this table:
Table 1. Characteristics of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) study articipants (1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2011-2012, and 2013-2014) included in this study (total = 4,970).

3.2. Identified chemical biomarkers related to cognitive function test scores

Out of 381 environmental chemical biomarkers examined across all four NHANES cycles, we only evaluated 173 biomarkers with a detection rate of ≥10% (Figure 1). Among the 173 chemicals, 27 were associated with DSST z-scores (q-value <0.05). These included metals (n = 11), PAHs (n = 3), PCBs (n = 3), pesticides (n = 3), phthalates (n = 2), and one each of PCCPCs, phytoestrogens, VOCs, flame retardants, and SRCs (Figure 2). PAHs, PCBs, phthalates, SRCs, and VOCs each decreased DSST z-scores, whereas flame retardants, PCCPCs, and phytoestrogens increased the scores. Metals and pesticides had varying effects depending on the biomarker (Table S3). For example, per 1 standard deviation increase in log10-transformed blood lead (Pb) level, DSST z-scores decreased by 0.09.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Manhattan plot of environmental factors (chemical biomarkers) associated with the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) z-scores. Significant chemical biomarkers were dotted above the grey dashed line (q-value <0.05), and the arrows indicated the direction of their effects on DSST z-scores. Abbreviation: B, blood; DDT, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; NNAL, 4- (methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyl; U, urine.

3.3. Associations between exposure to identified chemicals and cognitive decline

After screening chemical biomarkers that were associated with DSST z-scores, we examined associations between the identified biomarkers and cognitive decline by restricting analyses to those with a detection rate of >50% and separating the entire data to 1999-2002 and 2011-2014 cycles. When using the data collected during the 1999-2002 cycle, we could evaluate only 8 out of the 27 identified biomarkers, because the other 19 biomarkers were not measured during this cycle or had detection rates below 50%. From this cycle, blood Pb increased the odds of having cognitive decline (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.42), whereas blood cadmium (Cd) decreased the odds (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.96) (Table 2). From the 2011-2014 cycle data, we evaluated 18 biomarkers after excluding those that were not measured during this cycle or highly correlated chemicals with a VIF >10. From this cycle, blood 1,4-DCB and urinary 4- (methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) increased the odds of having cognitive decline (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.17, 1.54 and OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.62, respectively).

View this table:
Table 2. Associations between 27 identified environmental chemical biomarkers and cognitive decline by two combined cycles (NHANES 1999-2002 and 2011-2014) (total = 4,970).

3.4. Interactive impact of chemical exposures and health conditions on cognitive decline

Based on the partial correlation network structure newly created in the current study, cognitive decline was directly associated with non-chemical factors, including smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption, and health conditions (stroke, diabetes, and hypertension) (Figure 3). Environmental chemical exposures seemed to have indirect relationships with cognitive decline, with health conditions serving as potential mediators. For instance, blood Cd was positively correlated with stroke which was also positively correlated with cognitive decline. Thus, we conducted stratified analyses by the status of stroke, diabetes, hypertension, and obesity to examine the potential interactive impact of health conditions. Overall, we observed no significant associations from these analyses (Figure 4). However, the odds of having cognitive decline for stroke cases tended to be higher than for non-cases with increased levels of blood Cd, blood Pb, urinary thallium (Tl), urinary mono-ethyl phthalate (MEP), and urinary mono-benzyl phthalate (MBzP). Similarly, the odds for diabetes cases tended to be higher than for non-cases with increased levels of blood Cd, urinary Tl, urinary cesium (Cs), urinary MEP, and urinary MBzP. The odds for hypertension cases tended to be higher than for non-cases with increased levels of urinary Tl. The odds for obesity cases tended to be higher than for non-cases with increased levels of urinary Tl, urinary MEP, and urinary MBzP.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Partial correlation ( ) network plot depicting the magnitude and direction of correlation coefficients among identified chemical biomarkers, cognitive decline, and selected covariates. Only chemical biomarkers or covariates with significant correlation coefficients with cognitive decline (adjusted p-value <0.05) are shown. Green lines indicate relatively strong correlation coefficients (| 0.5). Red numbers indicate positive correlations and blue numbers indicate negative correlations.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of cognitive decline associated with six chemical biomarkers identified from correlation network structure stratified by four health conditions (total = 4,970). All chemical biomarker concentrations were log 10-transformed and scaled.

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this study represents comprehensive and systematic investigation into the association between environmental chemical exposures and cognitive decline. By using the EWAS approach and the NHANES data, we screened 173 environmental chemical biomarkers and identified those potentially related to cognitive decline. Additionally, we estimated the odds of having cognitive decline from the identified biomarkers and investigated previously undiscovered pathways linking chemical biomarkers to cognitive decline by extracting a correlation network structure. This allowed us to understand that cognitive decline can be worsened with increased chemical exposures among those with known risk factors of cognitive decline.

Among 173 chemical biomarkers investigated in this study, we observed that 27 biomarkers were associated with DSST z-scores. Most of them were metals, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and phthalates which are known to have neurotoxicity.62–66 Because these are characterized by persistence and bioaccumulation,67–70 older adults might have been chronically exposed throughout their lives.

When including all environmental chemical biomarkers identified from non-targeted screening, we found that blood Pb, urinary NNAL, and urinary 1,4-DCB increased the odds of cognitive decline. Previous studies have shown consistent results for the association between Pb exposure and cognitive function. For instance, each 1 µg/L increase in Pb concentration was associated with a 1.08-point decrease in DSST scores among U.S. older adults.26 For every 1 µg/dL increase in Pb levels, the odds of low cognitive performance in older adults in the U.S. by 10%.25 In addition, Pb, a ubiquitous environmental contaminant,71 is exposed primarily through food, water, tobacco smoke, air, dust, and soil.72 When Pb enters our human body, over 90% is accumulated in bones.73 Thus, older adults have high levels of Pb in their bodies due to their long lifespan.73,74 Pb can affect cognitive decline by disrupting neurotransmission75 and promoting oxidative stress76 through altering the fluidity or permeability of cell membranes.77 It also has indirect effects due to its associations with hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases,78 as well as its long-term storage in bones.79 Regarding NNAL, a previous study using NHANES data in older adults found that the group with the highest urinary NNAL concentration had a significantly lower DSST z-score by 0.19 compared to the lowest concentration group.80 NNAL is a reliable biomarker for nitrosamine ketone (NNK) exposure.81 NNK is present in the leaves of Nicotiana tabacum grown in the U.S.82 and can be exposed directly or indirectly through smoking,83 a well-known risk factor of cognitive decline. This compound is known to increase neurotoxicity by altering responses to centrally acting drugs, increasing susceptibility to neurotoxins, and enhancing metabolism.81 Lastly, 1,4-DCB (or paradichlorobenzene) can be easily encountered in our daily lives because it is an active ingredient in mothballs, deodorizers, and fumigants.84,85 However, there have been no epidemiological studies on the relationship between 1,4-DCB and cognitive function. Several in vivo studies have suggested its neurotoxic mechanism. This compound has central nervous system toxicity, causing oxidative damage and trace element alterations in various tissues, as well as oxidative DNA damage, leading to reported cognitive decline.84,86,87

From our correlation network analysis showing several pathways between chemical biomarkers and cognitive decline, we observed that stroke had relatively strong correlation coefficients with both blood Cd and cognitive decline. This finding highlights the need of this network analysis because blood Cd had protective effects against cognitive decline when considering other identified environmental chemicals in the regression. Previous studies have shown that exposure to Cd can impair cognitive performance both in isolated exposure scenarios and in combination with other environmental chemicals identified through EWAS screening.24–27 It is also well known that Cd causes vascular damage and promotes atherosclerosis88 by generating reactive oxygen species, disrupting sulfhydryl homeostasis, and downregulating nitric oxide.89 Stroke affects cognitive domains such as attention, memory, and language. People who had stroke commonly experience cognitive impairment and memory loss, making them highly likely to develop dementia within one year of stroke onset.90,91 While our findings suggest that the effects of Cd exposure on cognitive decline may vary by individual’s health conditions, the specific mechanisms underlying these pathways remain unclear. Further experimental investigation is warranted to elucidate the mediating effects of these health conditions on the association between Cd exposure and cognitive decline.

Our study has several limitations. Firstly, the cross-sectional nature of the NHANES data precludes establishing causation from our findings. Secondly, chemical biomarker concentration data were from a spot sample of each participant, so they may not represent individual’s average exposure over the lifetime of our participants. Thirdly, despite adjusting for confounders associated with cognitive decline based on previous studies, there may still be unmeasured confounding variables influencing our effect estimates. Fourthly, there could be imputation bias on the biomarker data because each NHANES cycle had a different list of chemical biomarkers and only one third of samples from each cycle were used to assess chemical biomarker concentrations. In addition, if the missing data mechanism of NHANES is non-random (i.e., missing not at random, MNAR), performing multiple imputation under the assumption of missing at random (MAR) may produce biased estimates.92 Finally, the EWAS approach used in this study cannot assess the effects of chemical mixtures, such as additive effects, synergism, potentiation, and antagonism.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we employed an EWAS approach to explore 173 environmental chemical biomarkers in association with cognitive decline among U.S. older adults. From the regression including all identified biomarkers significantly associated with cognitive decline, we observed positive associations between cognitive decline and Pb, 1,4-DCB, and NNAL. From the correlation network structure, Cd may increase the risk of stroke which is a risk factor of cognitive decline. These findings suggest that combined and prolonged exposure to these chemicals may worsen cognitive impairment in aging populations. Our study underscores the complex interplay between exposure to environmental chemicals and cognitive function in older adults, emphasizing the need for further research to elucidate causal mechanisms and effectively guide public health interventions.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author contributions

HyunA Jang: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, methodology, software, visualization, and writing – original draft. Jiyun Lee: conceptualization, data curation, methodology, visualization, validation, and writing – review & editing. Vy Kim Nguyen: resources, data curation, and writing – review & editing. Hyeong-Moo Shin: conceptualization, supervision, validation, and writing – review & editing.

Data availability

The data and R code can be shared upon request to the corresponding author.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Hou YJ, Dan XL, Babbar M, et al. Ageing as a risk factor for neurodegenerative disease. Nat Rev Neurol. Oct 2019;15(10):565–581. doi:10.1038/s41582-019-0244-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Alzheimer’s Association. Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures. Vol. 20. 2024. Alzheimers Dement. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.alz.org/media/documents/alzheimers-facts-and-figures.pdf
  3. 3.↵
    Collaborators GBDD. Global, regional, and national burden of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. Jan 2019;18(1):88–106. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30403-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    Collaborators GBDMND. Global, regional, and national burden of motor neuron diseases 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. Dec 2018;17(12):1083–1097. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30404-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Collaborators GBDPsD. Global, regional, and national burden of Parkinson’s disease, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. Nov 2018;17(11):939–953. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30295-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Rajan KB, Weuve J, Barnes LL, McAninch EA, Wilson RS, Evans DA. Population estimate of people with clinical Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment in the United States (2020-2060). Alzheimers Dement. Dec 2021;17(12):1966–1975. doi:10.1002/alz.12362
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    2021 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement. Mar 2021;17(3):327–406. doi:10.1002/alz.12328
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    National institute of Health. Looking Forward: Opportunities to Accelerate Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Research 2024. 13, Jun. 2024. https://www.nia.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/fy24_alzheimers_bypassbudget.pdf
  9. 9.↵
    Wilson DM, 3rd., Cookson MR, Van Den Bosch L, Zetterberg H, Holtzman DM, Dewachter I. Hallmarks of neurodegenerative diseases. Cell. Feb 16 2023;186(4):693–714. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.12.032
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Ullah MF, Ahmad A, Bhat SH, Abu-Duhier FM, Barreto GE, Ashraf GM. Impact of sex differences and gender specificity on behavioral characteristics and pathophysiology of neurodegenerative disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. Jul 2019;102:95–105. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.04.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    Wilson RS, Leurgans SE, Boyle PA, Schneider JA, Bennett DA. Neurodegenerative basis of age-related cognitive decline. Neurology. Sep 21 2010;75(12):1070–8. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181f39adc
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Harada CN, Natelson Love MC, Triebel KL. Normal cognitive aging. Clin Geriatr Med. Nov 2013;29(4):737–52. doi:10.1016/j.cger.2013.07.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Kelley BJ, Petersen RC. Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. Neurol Clin. Aug 2007;25(3):577–609, v. doi:10.1016/j.ncl.2007.03.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    Andrade C, Radhakrishnan R. The prevention and treatment of cognitive decline and dementia: An overview of recent research on experimental treatments. Indian J Psychiatry. Jan 2009;51(1):12–25. doi:10.4103/0019-5545.44900
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Baumgart M, Snyder HM, Carrillo MC, Fazio S, Kim H, Johns H. Summary of the evidence on modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and dementia: A population-based perspective. Alzheimers Dement. Jun 2015;11(6):718–26. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2015.05.016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Fan J, Tao W, Li X, et al. The Contribution of Genetic Factors to Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: Apolipoprotein E Gene, Gene Interactions, and Polygenic Risk. Int J Mol Sci. Mar 7 2019;20(5)doi:10.3390/ijms20051177
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    Manuello J, Min JS, Mccarthy P, et al. The effects of genetic and modifiable risk factors on brain regions vulnerable to ageing and disease. Nature Communications. Mar 27 2024;15(1)doi:ARTN 2576 10.1038/s41467-024-46344-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    Edwards Iii GA, Gamez N, Escobedo G, Jr., Calderon O, Moreno-Gonzalez I. Modifiable Risk Factors for Alzheimer’s Disease. Front Aging Neurosci. 2019;11:146. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2019.00146
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    Sepulveda-Falla D, Velez JI, Acosta-Baena N, et al. Genetic modifiers of cognitive decline in PSEN1 E280A Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. Apr 2024;20(4):2873–2885. doi:10.1002/alz.13754
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    Faouzi J, Tan M, Casse F, et al. Proxy-analysis of the genetics of cognitive decline in Parkinson’s disease through polygenic scores. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. Jan 4 2024;10(1):8. doi:10.1038/s41531-023-00619-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
  22. 22.↵
    Barahona AJ, Bursac Z, Veledar E, Lucchini R, Tieu K, Richardson JR. Relationship of Blood and Urinary Manganese Levels with Cognitive Function in Elderly Individuals in the United States by Race/Ethnicity, NHANES 2011-2014. Toxics. Apr 14 2022;10(4)doi:10.3390/toxics10040191
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.
    Larvie DY, Erikson KM, Armah SM. Elevated whole blood manganese is associated with impaired cognition in older adults, NHANES 2013-2014 cycle. Neurotoxicology. Jul 2022;91:94–99. doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2022.04.016
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    Wang X, Xiao P, Wang R, et al. Relationships between urinary metals concentrations and cognitive performance among U.S. older people in NHANES 2011-2014. Front Public Health. 2022;10:985127. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.985127
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    Lu K, Liu T, Wu X, Zhong J, Ou Z, Wu W. Association between serum iron, blood lead, cadmium, mercury, selenium, manganese and low cognitive performance in old adults from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES): a cross-sectional study. Br J Nutr. Nov 28 2023;130(10):1743–1753. doi:10.1017/S0007114523000740
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    Sasaki N, Carpenter DO. Associations between Metal Exposures and Cognitive Function in American Older Adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Feb 17 2022;19(4)doi:10.3390/ijerph19042327
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    Song S, Liu N, Wang G, et al. Sex Specificity in the Mixed Effects of Blood Heavy Metals and Cognitive Function on Elderly: Evidence from NHANES. Nutrients. Jun 25 2023;15(13)doi:10.3390/nu15132874
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    Kim UJ, Hong M, Choi YH. Environmental Pyrethroid Exposure and Cognitive Dysfunction in U.S. Older Adults: The NHANES 2001-2002. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Nov 16 2021;18(22)doi:10.3390/ijerph182212005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    Yu Y, Wang Y, Dong Y, et al. Butyl benzyl phthalate as a key component of phthalate ester in relation to cognitive impairment in NHANES elderly individuals and experimental mice. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. Apr 2023;30(16):47544–47560. doi:10.1007/s11356-023-25729-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.↵
    Patel CJ, Bhattacharya J, Butte AJ. An Environment-Wide Association Study (EWAS) on type 2 diabetes mellitus. PLoS One. May 20 2010;5(5):e10746. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010746
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Zheng Y, Chen Z, Pearson T, Zhao J, Hu H, Prosperi M. Design and methodology challenges of environment-wide association studies: A systematic review. Environ Res. Apr 2020;183:109275. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2020.109275
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.↵
    Hall MA, Dudek SM, Goodloe R, et al. Environment-wide association study (EWAS) for type 2 diabetes in the Marshfield Personalized Medicine Research Project Biobank. Pac Symp Biocomput. 2014:200–11.
  33. 33.↵
    Patel CJ, Chen R, Kodama K, Ioannidis JP, Butte AJ. Systematic identification of interaction effects between genome- and environment-wide associations in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Hum Genet. May 2013;132(5):495–508. doi:10.1007/s00439-012-1258-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    Zhao J, Fan B, Huang J, et al. Environment- and epigenome-wide association study of obesity in ’Children of 1997’ birth cohort. Elife. May 19 2023;12doi:10.7554/eLife.82377
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.↵
    Uche UI, Suzuki S, Fulda KG, Zhou Z. Environment-wide association study on childhood obesity in the U.S. Environ Res. Dec 2020;191:110109. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2020.110109
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    New A, Bennett KP. A Precision Environment-Wide Association Study of Hypertension via Supervised Cadre Models. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. Mar 2020;24(3):916–925. doi:10.1109/JBHI.2019.2918070
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    McGinnis DP, Brownstein JS, Patel CJ. Environment-Wide Association Study of Blood Pressure in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2012). Sci Rep. Jul 26 2016;6:30373. doi:10.1038/srep30373
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Chi Y, Park JT, Na S, Kwak K. Environment-wide association study of elevated liver enzymes: results from the Korean National Environmental Health Survey 2018-2022. Ann Occup Environ Med. 2023;35:e27. doi:10.35371/aoem.2023.35.e27
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    Ni MY, Yao XI, Cheung F, et al. Determinants of physical, mental and social well-being: a longitudinal environment-wide association study. Int J Epidemiol. Apr 1 2020;49(2):380–389. doi:10.1093/ije/dyz238
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.↵
    Lopez DS, Wulaningsih W, Tsilidis KK, et al. Environment-wide association study to comprehensively test and validate associations between nutrition and lifestyle factors and testosterone deficiency: NHANES 1988-1994 and 1999-2004. Hormones (Athens). Jun 2020;19(2):205–214. doi:10.1007/s42000-020-00179-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    Blighe K, Gurudas S, Lee Y, Sivaprasad S. Diabetic Retinopathy Environment-Wide Association Study (EWAS) in NHANES 2005-2008. J Clin Med. Nov 12 2020;9(11)doi:10.3390/jcm9113643
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    Belbasis L, Bellou V, Tzoulaki I, Evangelou E. Early-Life Factors and Risk of Multiple Sclerosis: An MR-EWAS. Neuroepidemiology. 2020;54(6):433–445. doi:10.1159/000508229
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.↵
    Zhuang X, Ni A, Liao L, et al. Environment-wide association study to identify novel factors associated with peripheral arterial disease: Evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2004). Atherosclerosis. Feb 2018;269:172–177. doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2018.01.006
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.↵
    Zhuang X, Guo Y, Ni A, et al. Toward a panoramic perspective of the association between environmental factors and cardiovascular disease: An environment-wide association study from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2014. Environ Int. Sep 2018;118:146–153. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.05.046
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    Health and nutrition examination survey plan and operations, 1999-2010. National Center for Health Statistics (U.S.); 2013. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/21304
  46. 46.↵
    Tulsky DS, Saklofske DH, Wilkins C, Weiss LG. Development of a general ability index for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--Third Edition. Psychol Assess. Dec 2001;13(4):566–71. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.13.4.566
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    Donohue MC, Sperling RA, Salmon DP, et al. The preclinical Alzheimer cognitive composite: measuring amyloid-related decline. JAMA Neurol. Aug 2014;71(8):961–70. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.803
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    Amieva H, Meillon C, Proust-Lima C, Dartigues JF. Is Low Psychomotor Speed a Marker of Brain Vulnerability in Late Life? Digit Symbol Substitution Test in the Prediction of Alzheimer, Parkinson, Stroke, Disability, and Depression. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2019;47(4-6):297–305. doi:10.1159/000500597
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. 49.↵
    Jaeger J. Digit Symbol Substitution Test: The Case for Sensitivity Over Specificity in Neuropsychological Testing. J Clin Psychopharmacol. Oct 2018;38(5):513–519. doi:10.1097/JCP.0000000000000941
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    Promotion NCfCDPaH. National Health Statistics Reports: Cognitive Performance in Adults Aged 60 and Over: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2011–2014. 2019. September 17, 2019. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr126-508.pdf
  51. 51.↵
    Li S, Sun W, Zhang D. Association of Zinc, Iron, Copper, and Selenium Intakes with Low Cognitive Performance in Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;72(4):1145–1157. doi:10.3233/jad-190263
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.↵
    Chen SP, Bhattacharya J, Pershing S. Association of Vision Loss With Cognition in Older Adults. JAMA Ophthalmol. Sep 1 2017;135(9):963–970. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.2838
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. 53.↵
    CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. NHANES 1999-2000 Laboratory Methods. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/labmethods.aspx?Cycle=1999-2000
  54. 54.
    CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. NHANES 2001-2002 Laboratory Methods. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/labmethods.aspx?BeginYear=2001
  55. 55.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Laboratory Procedures Manual. 2011. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/manuals.aspx?BeginYear=2011
  56. 56.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Laboratory Procedures Manual. 2013. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/manuals.aspx?BeginYear=2013
  57. 57.↵
    Nguyen VK, Middleton LYM, Huang L, et al. Harmonized US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1988-2018 for high throughput exposome-health discovery. medRxiv. Feb 8 2023;doi:10.1101/2023.02.06.23284573
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.↵
    Hales CM, Carroll MD, Fryar CD, Ogden CL. Prevalence of obesity and severe obesity among adults: United States, 2017–2018. NCHS Data Brief, no 360. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2020.
  59. 59.↵
    Kim S. Overview of Cotinine Cutoff Values for Smoking Status Classification. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Dec 14 2016;13(12)doi:10.3390/ijerph13121236
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Analytic and reporting guidelines: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2006.
  61. 61.↵
    Chung MK, Buck Louis GM, Kannan K, Patel CJ. Exposome-wide association study of semen quality: Systematic discovery of endocrine disrupting chemical biomarkers in fertility require large sample sizes. Environ Int. Apr 2019;125:505–514. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.11.037
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    Chen P, Miah MR, Aschner M. Metals and Neurodegeneration. F1000Res. 2016;5doidoi::10.12688/f1000research.7431.1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. 63.
    Olasehinde TA, Olaniran AO. Neurotoxicity of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: A Systematic Mapping and Review of Neuropathological Mechanisms. Toxics. Jul 25 2022;10(8)doi:10.3390/toxics10080417
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. 64.
    Pessah IN, Lein PJ, Seegal RF, Sagiv SK. Neurotoxicity of polychlorinated biphenyls and related organohalogens. Acta Neuropathol. Sep 2019;138(3):363–387. doi:10.1007/s00401-019-01978-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.
    Zhao Y, Chang YH, Ren HR, et al. Phthalates Induce Neurotoxicity by Disrupting the Mfn2-PERK Axis-Mediated Endoplasmic Reticulum-Mitochondria Interaction. J Agric Food Chem. Apr 3 2024;72(13):7411–7422. doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.3c07752
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. 66.↵
    Richardson JR, Fitsanakis V, Westerink RHS, Kanthasamy AG. Neurotoxicity of pesticides. Acta Neuropathol. Sep 2019;138(3):343–362. doi:10.1007/s00401-019-02033-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. 67.↵
    Ali H, Khan E, Ilahi I. Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology of Hazardous Heavy Metals: Environmental Persistence, Toxicity, and Bioaccumulation. J Chem-Ny. 2019;2019doi:Artn 6730305 10.1155/2019/6730305
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. 68.
    Casale J, As R. Phthalates Toxicity. StatPearls. 2023.
  69. 69.
    Sun K, Song Y, He F, Jing M, Tang J, Liu R. A review of human and animals exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Health risk and adverse effects, photo-induced toxicity and regulating effect of microplastics. Sci Total Environ. Jun 15 2021;773:145403. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145403
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. 70.↵
    Crinnion WJ. Polychlorinated biphenyls: persistent pollutants with immunological, neurological, and endocrinological consequences. Altern Med Rev. Mar 2011;16(1):5–13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    Wei Y, Zhou J, Zhao F, et al. Association of blood lead exposure with frailty and its components among the Chinese oldest old. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. Sep 1 2022;242:113959. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2022.113959
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  72. 72.↵
    Gundacker C, Forsthuber M, Szigeti T, et al. Lead (Pb) and neurodevelopment: A review on exposure and biomarkers of effect (BDNF, HDL) and susceptibility. Int J Hyg Environ Health. Sep 2021;238:113855. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2021.113855
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. 73.↵
    Vig EK, Hu H. Lead toxicity in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. Nov 2000;48(11):1501–6.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  74. 74.↵
    Lv Y, Wei Y, Zhou J, et al. Human biomonitoring of toxic and essential metals in younger elderly, octogenarians, nonagenarians and centenarians: Analysis of the Healthy Ageing and Biomarkers Cohort Study (HABCS) in China. Environ Int. Nov 2021;156:106717. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2021.106717
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. 75.↵
    Lasley SM, Gilbert ME. Glutamatergic components underlying lead-induced impairments in hippocampal synaptic plasticity. Neurotoxicology. Dec 2000;21(6):1057–68.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  76. 76.↵
    Ahamed M, Siddiqui MK. Low level lead exposure and oxidative stress: current opinions. Clin Chim Acta. Aug 2007;383(1-2):57–64. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2007.04.024
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  77. 77.↵
    Adonaylo VN, Oteiza PI. Pb2+ promotes lipid oxidation and alterations in membrane physical properties. Toxicology. Jan 1 1999;132(1):19–32. doi:10.1016/s0300-483x(98)00134-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  78. 78.↵
    Navas-Acien A, Guallar E, Silbergeld EK, Rothenberg SJ. Lead exposure and cardiovascular disease--a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect. Mar 2007;115(3):472–82. doi:10.1289/ehp.9785
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  79. 79.↵
    Hu H, Rabinowitz M, Smith D. Bone lead as a biological marker in epidemiologic studies of chronic toxicity: conceptual paradigms. Environ Health Perspect. Jan 1998;106(1):1–8. doi:10.1289/ehp.981061
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  80. 80.↵
    Ge S, Ma W, Qu Z, et al. Urinary tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1- (3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) and cognitive functioning in older adults: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013-2014. Tob Induc Dis. 2023;21:68. doi:10.18332/tid/162368
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  81. 81.↵
    Yalcin E, de la Monte S. Tobacco nitrosamines as culprits in disease: mechanisms reviewed. J Physiol Biochem. Mar 2016;72(1):107–20. doi:10.1007/s13105-016-0465-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  82. 82.↵
    Bovet L, Campanoni P, Lu J, et al. CLCNt2 Mediates Nitrate Content in Tobacco Leaf, Impacting the Production of Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines in Cured Leaves. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:741078. doi:10.3389/fpls.2022.741078
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. 83.↵
    Boo HJ, Min HY, Hwang SJ, et al. The tobacco-specific carcinogen NNK induces pulmonary tumorigenesis via nAChR/Src/STAT3-mediated activation of the renin-angiotensin system and IGF-1R signaling. Exp Mol Med. Jun 2023;55(6):1131–1144. doi:10.1038/s12276-023-00994-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  84. 84.↵
    Dubey D, Sharma VD, Pass SE, Sawhney A, Stuve O. Para-dichlorobenzene toxicity - a review of potential neurotoxic manifestations. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. May 2014;7(3):177–87. doi:10.1177/1756285614521889
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    Budny JA. Encyclopedia of Toxicology, 3rd edition. Int J Toxicol. Jul-Aug 2015;34(4):366–367. doi:10.1177/1091581815586498
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. 86.↵
    Suhua W, Rongzhu L, Changqing Y, et al. Lipid peroxidation and changes of trace elements in mice treated with paradichlorobenzene. Biol Trace Elem Res. Sep 2010;136(3):320–36. doi:10.1007/s12011-009-8552-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  87. 87.↵
    Oikawa S, Kawanishi S. Copper-mediated DNA damage by metabolites of p- dichlorobenzene. Carcinogenesis. Dec 1996;17(12):2733–9. doi:10.1093/carcin/17.12.2733
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  88. 88.↵
    Feigin VL, Forouzanfar MH, Krishnamurthi R, et al. Global and regional burden of stroke during 1990-2010: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. Jan 18 2014;383(9913):245–54. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61953-4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. 89.↵
    Valko M, Morris H, Cronin MT. Metals, toxicity and oxidative stress. Curr Med Chem. 2005;12(10):1161–208. doi:10.2174/0929867053764635
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  90. 90.↵
    Al-Qazzaz NK, Ali SH, Ahmad SA, Islam S, Mohamad K. Cognitive impairment and memory dysfunction after a stroke diagnosis: a post-stroke memory assessment. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014;10:1677–91. doi:10.2147/NDT.S67184
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  91. 91.↵
    Cullen B, O’Neill B, Evans JJ, Coen RF, Lawlor BA. A review of screening tests for cognitive impairment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. Aug 2007;78(8):790–9. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2006.095414
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. 92.↵
    Carreras G, Miccinesi G, Wilcock A, et al. Missing not at random in end of life care studies: multiple imputation and sensitivity analysis on data from the ACTION study. BMC Med Res Methodol. Jan 9 2021;21(1):13. doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01180-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted July 23, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Environment-Wide Association Study of Cognitive Function in U.S. Older Adults using the NHANES Data
HyunA Jang, Jiyun Lee, Vy Kim Nguyen, Hyeong-Moo Shin
medRxiv 2024.07.22.24310659; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.22.24310659
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area