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 180 studies in Prevention and risk of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 7 of 8) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 180 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.

Olfactory impairment at baseline was strongly associated with 5-year incidence of cognitive impairment as measured using the MMSE. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Atrial cardiomyopathy, characterized by abnormalities in atrial structure and function, is associated with increased risk of adverse cardiovascular and neurocognitive outcomes, independent of atrial fibrillation. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Health benefits of physical activity in older patients: a review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. International journal of clinical practice 2009-02-01

As the number of elderly persons in our country increases, more attention is being given to geriatric healthcare needs and successful ageing is becoming an important topic in medical literature. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

These findings support the view that chronic financial pressures associated with low income exert a weathering effect that results in premature aging. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Of 3424 articles on potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia, 1719 met our inclusion criteria; 60 were deemed to be of good or fair quality. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

At the baseline evaluation, 256 (62%) of 414 subjects were designated normal; 109 (26%). 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 414 Evidence: moderate

Increased UPF consumption is associated with higher risks of dementia, CIND, and CIND or dementia among US older adults. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 5,370 Evidence: moderate

Caffeine as a protective factor in dementia and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2010-01-01

Caffeine has well-known short-term stimulating effects on central nervous system, but the long-term impacts on cognition have been less clear. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Making time for brain health: recognising temporal inequity in dementia risk reduction

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. The Lancet Healthy Longevity 2025-10-01

Time is an under-recognised social determinant of brain health, and is potentially as important as education or income for dementia risk. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Increasing oily fish intake has been proposed as a strategy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention, but evidence for long-term benefit remains limited. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 2,012 Evidence: null result

Can anxiety damage the brain?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Current opinion in psychiatry 2016-01-01

Recent findings Anxiety disorders are associated with alterations in fear neurocircuitry such that 'bottom-up' processes in the amygdala which respond to threat are exaggerated, and regulation of these processes by the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and hippocampus is impaired. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

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

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

Diversity of complementary diet and early food allergy risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology 2025-01-01

High weighted DD scores (24-31p) at age 9 months were associated with 61% decreased odds of FA at age 18 months [OR (95% CI) = 0.39 0.18-0.88] compared with infants with the lowest DD scores (0-17p). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The 12 risk factors account for 60.3% of dementia cases in China, including 14.0% in early life, 8.8% in midlife, and 37.5% in later life. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

MRI-derived brain aging trajectories across the Alzheimer's continuum: links to cognition, pathology and lifestyle risk factors

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-22

BackgroundThe brain age gap (BAG), the difference between neuroimaging-predicted and chronological age, captures inter-individual variation in brain aging. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 202 Evidence: moderate

In the fully adjusted Cox model, baseline statin exposure was associated with a lower risk of incident AMI (HR, 0.805; 95% CI, 0.731-0.887). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 174,014 Evidence: high

↑ 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