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 151–175 of 639 studies in Prevention and risk · free to read (page 7 of 26) · 29,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these 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.

Increasing evidence indicates that physical activity and exercise training may delay or prevent the onset of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Long-Term Intake of Red Meat in Relation to Dementia Risk and Cognitive Function in US Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Neurology 2025-01-15

= 0.04). Replacing 1 serving per day of nuts and legumes for processed red meat was associated with a 19% lower risk of dementia (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.86), 1.37 fewer years of cognitive aging (95% CI -2.49 to -0.25), and a 21% lower risk of SCD (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.92). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

From October 2018 to March 2020, 58 participants were recruited (29 per group, 95% [86%-99%]). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 58 Evidence: high

This study found that a high-intensity multidomain lifestyle intervention did not affect brain biomarker trajectories and was not associated with Aβ pathology, but older adults with specific at-risk brain characteristics, including lower baseline HC volume, showed a greater cognitive benefit of the structured intervention. 4 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 983 Evidence: moderate

Compared with non-users, SGLT-2i, GLP-1RA, TZD and metformin were associated with the reduced risk of dementia in patients with T2D. SGLT-2i, and GLP-1RA may serve as the optimal choice to improve the cognitive prognosis in patients with T2D. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,462,926 Evidence: moderate

Visual Impairment, Eye Conditions, and Diagnoses of Neurodegeneration and Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-07-01

In this cohort and MR study of UK Biobank participants, cataracts were associated with increased risk of dementia, especially vascular dementia, and reduced total brain volumes. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 304,953 Evidence: moderate

8 studies examined the association of sedentary behaviour with cognitive function. 6 studies reported significant negative associations between sedentary behaviour and cognitive function. 8 different measures of sedentary behaviour and 13 different measures of cognitive function were used across all eight studies. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Aerobic training significantly increased hippocampal volume in older women with probable MCI. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Physical exercise, aging, and mild cognitive impairment: a population-based study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-01-01

In this population-based case-control study, any frequency of moderate exercise performed in midlife or late life was associated with a reduced odds of having MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,324 Evidence: moderate

We found that severe COVID-19 infection, associated with a high mortality rate, might develop in a minority of fully vaccinated individuals with multiple co-morbidities. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 152 Evidence: moderate

Metformin should continue to be used as a first line therapy for diabetes in patients at risk of developing dementia or Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Post-MI Hosp-CR and Home-CR are similarly effective in the short term and improve TWC and HRQL in each age group. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 90 Evidence: high

Physical exercise has been shown to increase brain volume and improve cognition in randomized trials of non-demented elderly. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Age-Related Sensory Impairments and Risk of Cognitive Impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2016-09-09

The relationship between sensory impairment and cognitive impairment was not unique to one sensory system, suggesting that sensorineural health may be a marker of brain aging. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,884 Evidence: moderate

This meta-analysis suggests that hearing impairment is associated with cognitive problems. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 602 Evidence: high

Stroke, dementia, and hypertension are associated with late-onset epilepsy; however, the role of other vascular and lifestyle factors remains unclear. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 792 Evidence: moderate

Rationale and Design of the Hamburg City Health Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. European journal of epidemiology 2019-11-08

The Hamburg City Health Study (HCHS) is a large, prospective, long-term, population-based cohort study and a unique research platform and network to obtain substantial knowledge about several important risk and prognostic factors in major chronic diseases. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 45,000 Evidence: moderate

Fentanyl Test Strip Use and Overdose Risk Reduction Behaviors Among People Who Use Drugs

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-05-13

The study included 732 participants (median [IQR] age, 41 [34.0-48.0] years; 369 [50.4%] male; 64 [8.9%] Black or African American, 587 [81.3%] White, and 71 [9.8%] other races); 414 reported baseline FTS use and 318 did not. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 732 Evidence: moderate

Hearing Loss, Brain Structure, Cognition, and Dementia Risk in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-11-05

Sample 1 included 1656 participants (mean [range] age, 58.1 [29.7-85.6] years; 903 female [54.5%]), and sample 2 included 935 participants (mean [range] age, 67.6 [60.0-85.6] years; 518 female [55.4%]). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,656 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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.

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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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 (3.5% 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