Interrelationship between PQ exposure and Parkinson disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some studies have conflicting findings, suggesting that PQ has no association with the progression of Parkinson disease (PD). This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of PQ on the incidence of PD. METHODS: A computerized search was conducted in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus for literature on factors influencing DEACMP from their inception to October 2023. Statistical analyses and meta-analyses were performed using STATA 17.0 and RevMan 5.4 software, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 181 articles were retrieved. 14 articles were included, comprising 4731 PD cases and 205,129 control cases. In case-control studies, the proportion of PQ exposure in the PD group was relatively high, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.47 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25, 1.72; I2 = 2%, P < .00001). In cohort studies, the PD group showed a relatively high proportion of PQ exposure, with an OR of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71-0.92; I2 = 0%, P = .001). Additionally, subgroup analyses were conducted based on the study area. Studies from the United States and Canada indicated that the proportion of PQ exposure in the PD group was relatively high, with an OR of 1.36 (95% CI: 1.12-1.67; I2 = 10%, P = .002). In addition, the occupational exposure analysis showed that the proportion of PQ exposure in the PD group was higher, with an OR of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.71-0.99; I2 = 10%, P = .03). The environmental exposure analysis indicated a tendency towards a higher proportion of PQ exposure in the PD group, with an OR of 2.37 (95% CI: 0.98-5.73; I2 = 9%, P = .06). The mixed exposure analysis revealed a significantly higher proportion of PQ exposure in the PD group, with an OR of 1.47 (95% CI: 1.25-1.73; I2 = 0%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that PQ exposure does not obviously increase the incidence of PD. However, factors such as gender, exposure conditions, and regional differences may affect the incidence of PD induced by PQ exposure. Further clarification is required regarding the impact of paraquat exposure on PD. Simultaneously, efforts should be made to prohibit or reduce the use of and exposure to paraquat.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".