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.

Find studies

Showing 201–225 of 384 studies in Prevention and risk · tagged Prevention (page 9 of 16) · 30,180 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.

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.

Alzheimer's disease: risk factors and potentially protective measures

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of biomedical science 2019-05-09

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia and typically manifests through a progressive loss of episodic memory and cognitive function, subsequently causing language and visuospatial skills deficiencies, which are often accompanied by behavioral disorders such as apathy, aggressiveness and depression. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Dementia prevention: current epidemiological evidence and future perspective

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2012-02-13

Dementia, a major cause of disability and institutionalization in older people, poses a serious threat to public health and to the social and economic development of modern society. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Faith-Based Lifestyle Intervention for Diabetes Prevention Among Adults in Bangladesh

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-10-20

Of the 799 participants (mean [SD] age, 46.2 [11.6] years; 424 women [53.1%]) randomized, 641 completed the 12-month follow-up and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 341 (n = 4 mosques) in the intervention group and 300 (n = 4 mosques) in the control group. 5 key findings →

Participants: 799 Evidence: high

Hearing aid use was associated with a modestly lower risk of probable dementia overall (Hazard Ratios, HR, 0.91), but the association was confined to participants reporting improvements in hearing (HR 0.86), with no apparent benefit among those reporting poor improvement in hearing (HR 0.98). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 61,089 Evidence: moderate

Racial disparities in dementia may be reduced by prevention and management of disease and promoting educational attainment among blacks and Hispanics. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Prophylactic oophorectomy in premenopausal women and long-term health

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Menopause international 2008-09-01

The potential adverse effects of prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy on heart health, neurological health, bone health and quality of life should be carefully weighed against its potential benefits for cancer risk reduction in women at average risk of ovarian cancer. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been used in clinical practice in the United States for the last 4 to 6 years. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,254 Evidence: low

Diet, Exercise, and Lifestyle in Glaucoma: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-10-27

Glaucoma is a major ocular neurodegenerative disease and a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide, with prevalence projected to exceed 110 million by 2040. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

Among 5,145 participants included in the analyses, 747 (14.5 %) reported hearing loss, including 207 Black adults and 199 White adults. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,145 Evidence: moderate

Diabetic complications represent a formidable clinical challenge characterized by hyperglycemia-induced multiorgan dysfunction and dysregulated intercellular signaling networks. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Modifiable factors that alter the size of the hippocampus with ageing

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2012-03-13

The hippocampus is particularly vulnerable to the neurotoxic effects of obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypoxic brain injury, obstructive sleep apnoea, bipolar disorder, clinical depression and head trauma. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

White matter hyperintensities contribute to the presentation of AD and, in the context of significant amyloid deposition, may provide a second hit necessary for the clinical manifestation of the disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Concepts for brain aging: resistance, resilience, reserve, and compensation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2019-03-11

A primary goal of research in cognitive impairment and dementia is to understand how some individuals retain sufficient cognitive function for a fulfilling life while many others are robbed of their independence, sometimes their essence, in the last years and decades of life. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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