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 1–25 of 61 studies in Prevention and risk (page 1 of 3) · 31,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 61 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 61 studies tagged metabolic-syndrome — clear

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.

Adherence to Mediterranean diet and health status: meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 83 out of 100. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2008-09-11

Greater adherence to a Mediterranean diet is associated with a significant improvement in health status, as seen by a significant reduction in overall mortality (9%), mortality from cardiovascular diseases (9%), incidence of or mortality from cancer (6%), and incidence of Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease (13%). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 574,299 Evidence: high

Forty-five studies involving over 730 000 participants were included. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Increased absolute sugar intake (g/day) was significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause dementia (HR = 1.003, [95%CI: 1.002-1.004], p < 0.001) and Alzheimer's disease (1.002, [1.001-1.004], 0.005). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 210,832 Evidence: moderate

We searched 122 studies, of which 90 were included in our analysis. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

A high-protein and alcohol dietary pattern was negatively associated with cortical thickness in the whole brain (Beta: -0.011; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.018 to -0.003), and with an Alzheimer's disease cortical thickness signature score (Beta: -0.013; 95% CI: -0.024 to -0.001). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 610 Evidence: moderate

Emerging evidence of brain injury on risk of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) have resulted in interest in therapeutic potential of omega-3 fatty acids (n-3FA). 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

To examine the relationship between smoking and Alzheimer's disease (AD) after controlling for study design, quality, secular trend, and tobacco industry affiliation of the authors, electronic databases were searched; 43 individual studies met the inclusion criteria. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

RECENT FINDINGS: Based on available epidemiological studies, two meta-analyses published in 2013 have underlined a protective effect of a greater MeDi adherence on cognitive health, including a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease and cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

We reviewed epidemiological and experimental studies of female gonadal hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on cognitive function in post-menopausal women and carried out meta-analyses. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease: a study of epidemiological aspects

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Annals of neurology 1984-04-01

A case-control study was performed to determine the possible roles of various environmental factors, prior illnesses, drug use, and personal habits in the development of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 40 Evidence: moderate

53.0% of the participants were in the group of possible mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 117 Evidence: moderate

There were interactions between the dietary patterns and APOE ε4 status in relation to incident dementia (interaction p value threshold of < 0.1), while no evidence of interactions were found between the dietary patterns and the AD-PRSs. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

There is substantial evidence supporting the neuroprotective effects of the MIND diet in neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a nutritional intervention (NI) with this diet on multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Hippocampal neurogenesis (HN) occurs throughout the life course and is important for memory and mood. 2 key findings →

Participants: 371 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. 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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.

1,052 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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