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 204 studies in Risk factors (page 1 of 9) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 204 studies tagged prospective — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

What “Risk factors” covers

Risk factors — Conditions, exposures and habits linked to a higher or lower chance of dementia, and how strong each link is.

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.

Study-level data from 14 studies, 2,310,330 individuals, and 102,174 dementia case patients were included. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,310,330 Evidence: high

In analyses that addressed bias due to reverse causation, physical inactivity was not associated with all-cause dementia or Alzheimer's disease, although an indication of excess dementia risk was observed in a subgroup of physically inactive individuals who developed cardiometabolic disease. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 404 Evidence: high

Association Between Age at Diabetes Onset and Subsequent Risk of Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. JAMA 2021-04-01

Among 10 095 participants (67.3% men; aged 35-55 years in 1985-1988), a total of 1710 cases of diabetes and 639 cases of dementia were recorded over a median follow-up of 31.7 years. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 95 Evidence: moderate

This study examined the association of diabetes with the onset of dementia (including Alzheimer's disease (AD), vascular dementia (VD) and any dementia) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by using a quantitative meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,184 Evidence: high

Midlife and late-life risk factors contributed to 22.7% and 16.5% of total dementia cases, respectively. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 37,931 Evidence: high

Pooled HRs indicated depression present in late-life (HR 1.95, 95% CI: 1.68–2.26; I 2 = 77.5%) and midlife (HR 1.56, 95% CI: 1.12–2.18; I 2 = 97.5%) significantly increased risk of all-cause dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 901,762 Evidence: high

The relationship between body mass index (BMI) (in midlife and late-life) and dementia was investigated in meta-analyses of 16 articles reporting on 15 prospective studies. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 624 Evidence: high

A statistically significant age-adjusted association was observed between the A1C level and the score on all four cognitive tests. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

A total of 19 reviews containing 37 meta-analyses were included umbrella review. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 19 Evidence: high

Sleep-disordered breathing, hypoxia, and risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia in older women

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA 2011-08-01

Among older women, those with sleep-disordered breathing compared with those without sleep-disordered breathing had an increased risk of developing cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 60 Evidence: low

The authors assessed the association of smoking with dementia and cognitive decline in a meta-analysis of 19 prospective studies with at least 12 months of follow-up. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 26,374 Evidence: high

Recurrent depressive symptoms and the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Neurology 2010-07-01

Our findings support the hypothesis that depression is a risk factor for dementia and suggest that recurrent depression is particularly pernicious. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,239 Evidence: moderate

Controversies persist regarding the association between blood pressure (BP) and the risks of cognitive impairment and dementia due to inconsistent definitions of BP exposure and varying population characteristics. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

To determine incidence of dementia in type 2 diabetic (T2DM) patients, and whether there are adverse or favorable effects of oral agents (OA) in DM, we obtained a representative cohort of 800,000 from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance database. 2 key findings →

Participants: 127,209 Evidence: moderate

If the associations we observed are causal, then air pollution from traffic might be an important risk factor for vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,806 Evidence: moderate

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore whether type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) increases the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 15 Evidence: high

Blood pressure from mid- to late life and risk of incident dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2017-11-08

Elevated blood pressure during midlife, persistence of elevated blood pressure into late life, and, among nonhypertensives, a steep decline in blood pressure during mid- to late life were associated with an increased dementia risk in a community-based cohort. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,440 Evidence: moderate

Traumatic Brain Injury and Risk of Incident Comorbidities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-12-12

The study consisted of 20 400 patients (9264 female [45.4%]; 1576 Black [7.7%], 3944 Latinx [19.3%], and 10 480 White [51.4%]), including 5100 patients with mTBI (median [IQR] age, 36.0 [25.0-51.0] years), 5100 patients with msTBI (median [IQR age, 35.0 [25.0-52.0] years), and 10 200 matched patients in the control group (median [IQR] age, 36.0 [25.0-51.0] years). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 400 Evidence: moderate

Several studies report an association between REM Sleep Behavior Disorder (RBD) and neurodegenerative diseases, in particular synucleinopathies. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Vascular risk factors, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obesity and dyslipidaemia often co-occur. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14 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
  • 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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