4.7 Article

A Co-Twin control study of fine particulate matter and the prevalence of metabolic syndrome risk factors

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 201, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111604

关键词

Metabolic syndrome; Fine particulate matter; Twins; Vietnam veterans

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 HL68630, R01 AG026255, R01 HL125246, 2K24 HL077506, R01 HL136205]
  2. HERCULES Center [P30ES019776]
  3. US Department of Veterans Affairs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study of 566 middle-aged twins found that higher PM2.5 values in the residence area are associated with more MetS risk factors, but this association is confounded by familial factors.
The relationship between ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and metabolic syndrome (MetS) is under-studied. It also remains unknown whether familial factors play a role in this relationship. In a study of 566 middle-aged twins, we examined the association of PM2.5 with MetS risk factors, measured by a MetS score as a summation of individual risk factors (range, 0 to 5). High-resolution PM2.5 estimates were obtained through previously validated models that incorporated monitor and satellite derived data. We estimated two-year average PM2.5 concentrations based on the ZIP code of each twin's residence. We used ordinal response models adapted for twin studies. When treating twins as individuals, the odds ratio of having 1-point higher MetS score was 1.78 for each 10 mu g/m(3)-increase in exposure to PM2.5 (confidence interval [CI]: 1.01, 3.15), after adjusting for potential confounders. This association was mainly between pairs; the odds ratio was 1.97 (CI: 1.01, 3.84) for each 10 mu g/m(3)-increase in the average pairwise exposure level. We found no significant difference in MetS scores within pairs who were discordant for PM2.5 exposure. In conclusion, higher PM2.5 in residence area is associated with more MetS risk factors. This association, however, is confounded by shared familial factors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据