Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 273

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ambient air pollution and neurotoxicity on brain structure: Evidence from women's health initiative memory study

Open access
Chen, Jiu‐Chiuan, Wang, Xinhui, Wellenius, Gregory A., Serre, Marc L., Driscoll, Ira, Casanova, Ramon, McArdle, John J., Manson, JoAnn E., Chui, Helena C., Espeland, Mark A.·2015·Annals of Neurology

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the putative adverse effects of ambient fine particulate matter (PM 2.5: PM with aerodynamic diameters <2.5μm) on brain volumes in older women. Methods: We conducted a prospective study of 1,403 community‐dwelling older women without dementia enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative Memory Study, 1996–1998. Structural brain magnetic resonance imaging scans were performed at the age of 71–89 years in 2005–2006 to obtain volumetric measures of gray matter (GM) and normal‐appearing white matter (WM). Given residential histories and air monitoring data, we used a spatiotemporal model to estimate cumulative PM 2.5 exposure in 1999–2006. Multiple linear regression was employed to evaluate the associations between PM 2.5 and brain volumes, adjusting for intracranial volumes and potential confounders. Results: Older women with greater PM 2.5 exposures had significantly smaller WM, but not GM, volumes, independent of geographical region, demographics, socioeconomic status, lifestyles, and clinical characteristics, including cardiovascular risk factors. For each interquartile increment (3.49μg/m 3) of cumulative PM 2.5 exposure, the average WM volume (WMV; 95% confidence interval) was 6.23cm 3 (3.72–8.74) smaller in the total brain and 4.47cm 3 (2.27–6.67) lower in the association areas, equivalent to 1 to 2 years of brain aging. The adverse PM 2.5 effects on smaller WMVs were present in frontal and temporal lobes and corpus callosum (all p values <0.01). Hippocampal volumes did not differ by PM 2.5 exposure. Interpretation: PM 2.5 exposure may contribute to WM loss in older women. Future studies are needed to determine whether exposures result in myelination disturbance, disruption of axonal integrity, damages to oligodendrocytes, or other WM neuropathologies. Ann Neurol 2015;78:466–476

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ana.24460

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 273

Metadata

Authors
Chen, J., Wang, X., Wellenius, G. A., Serre, M. L., Driscoll, I., Casanova, R., McArdle, J. J., Manson, J. E., Chui, H. C., & Espeland, M. A.
Venue
Annals of Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-07-28
Volume
78
Issue
3
Pages
466-476
ISSN
  • 0364-5134 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-8249
OpenAlex
W2113081633
Cited by
273
References
7
FWCI
13.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ambient air pollution and neurotoxicity on brain structure: Evidence from women's health initiative memory study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ana.24460
The paper
Chen, J., Wang, X., Wellenius, G. A., Serre, M. L., Driscoll, I., Casanova, R., McArdle, J. J., Manson, J. E., Chui, H. C., & Espeland, M. A. (2015). Ambient air pollution and neurotoxicity on brain structure: Evidence from women's health initiative memory study. Annals of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24460

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.