alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Research

30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 251–275 of 384 studies in Prevention and risk · tagged Prevention (page 11 of 16) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 384 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,452 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

What “Prevention and risk” covers

Prevention and risk — What might lower the risk of dementia — and what happened when those things were properly tested.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

The epidemiology of the dementias: an update

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Current opinion in psychiatry 2007-07-01

Current evidence suggests that vascular factors, such as midlife hypertension, diabetes, and cerebrovascular disease, contribute significantly to the development of dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and that active engagement in mental, physical, and social activities may postpone the onset of dementia by providing cognitive reserve. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Nutritional patterns associated with the maintenance of neurocognitive functions and the risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease: A focus on human studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Pharmacological research 2018-03-16

Ample epidemiological evidence suggests a strong correlation among diet, lifestyle factors and the onset and consolidation of dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

FGF21 Attenuates High-Fat Diet-Induced Cognitive Impairment via Metabolic Regulation and Anti-inflammation of Obese Mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Molecular neurobiology 2017-07-15

Accumulating studies suggest that overnutrition-associated obesity may lead to development of type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndromes (MetS). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Nickel-based nanomaterials: a comprehensive analysis of risk assessment, toxicity mechanisms, and future strategies for health risk prevention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of Nanobiotechnology 2025-03-14

Nickel-based nanomaterials (NBNs) have seen a surge in usage across a variety of applications. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Effects of B Vitamins on Homocysteine Lowering and Thrombotic Risk Reduction—A Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Published Since January 1996

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-03-24

(cobalamin)-dependent pathways. Supplementation of B vitamins has been shown to effectively reduce plasma homocysteine levels. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Cardiovascular risk factors and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The American journal of geriatric pharmacotherapy 2008-06-01

From a clinical perspective, these data further support the rationale for physicians to provide effective management of CVD risk factors and for patients to be compliant with such recommendations to possibly prevent cognitive decline/dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Achievements, Gaps, and Future Directions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 2025-02-01

Bringing together global efforts to enhance the implementation of warnings in managing vulnerabilities, hazards, risks, and disasters is essential to saving lives and for long-term vulnerability reduction. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Epidemiology of oral health in older adults aged 65 or over: prevalence, risk factors and prevention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research 2025-06-23

Oral diseases have emerged as one of the most prevalent non-communicable diseases (NCDs) worldwide, with a high global average prevalence of 45%, affecting an estimated 3.5 billion people globally. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read

How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped

This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.

  • Journal tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up to 2 pts

Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.

Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.

We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.

The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.

See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 30,980 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.

What this library is — and isn't

This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed    Where this research is being discussed: events