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 30 studies in Prevention and risk with an author at Brigham and Women's Hospital (US) (page 1 of 2) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 30 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.

Trial of the MIND Diet for Prevention of Cognitive Decline in Older Persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 87 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2023-07-18

Among cognitively unimpaired participants with a family history of dementia, changes in cognition and brain MRI outcomes from baseline to year 3 did not differ significantly between those who followed the MIND diet and those who followed the control diet with mild caloric restriction. 5 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 604 Evidence: null result

During the CEE plus MPA intervention phase, the numbers of CHD cases were 196 for CEE plus MPA vs 159 for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.45) and 206 vs 155, respectively, for invasive breast cancer (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.01-1.53). 3 key findings →

Participants: 8,506 Evidence: low

The task force issued five statements related to the management of anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adults admitted to the ICU. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 24 Evidence: high

Among older adults at risk of cognitive decline and dementia, a structured, higher-intensity intervention had a statistically significant greater benefit on global cognition compared with an unstructured, self-guided intervention. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,056 Evidence: high

Coffee and Tea Intake, Dementia Risk, and Cognitive Function

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. JAMA 2026-03-17

Greater consumption of caffeinated coffee and tea was associated with lower risk of dementia and modestly better cognitive function, with the most pronounced association at moderate intake levels. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 131,821 Evidence: moderate

Tai Chi shows potential to enhance cognitive function in older adults, particularly in the realm of executive functioning and in individuals without significant impairment. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 2,553 Evidence: high

The mean (SD) age was 73.7 (6.0) years, and the mean (SD) follow-up time was 3.7 (1.2) years. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 223 Evidence: moderate

In older women, habitual sleep duration predicts the future risk for cognitive impairments including dementia, independent of vascular risk factors. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Association Between Slow-Wave Sleep Loss and Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2023-12-01

From the 868 Framingham Heart Study participants who returned for a second PSG, this cohort included 346 participants with a mean age of 69 years (range, 60-87 years); 179 (52%) were female. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 346 Evidence: early

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

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

44 participants were included: 20 PSEN1 E280A mutation carriers and 24 non-carriers. 2 key findings →

Participants: 44 Evidence: moderate

Each additional copy of the apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) allele is associated with a higher risk of Alzheimer's dementia, while the APOE2 allele is associated with a lower risk of Alzheimer's dementia, it is not yet known whether APOE2 homozygotes have a particularly low risk. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Research priorities to reduce the global burden of dementia by 2025

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2016-10-11

At the First WHO Ministerial Conference on Global Action Against Dementia in March, 2015, 160 delegates, including representatives from 80 WHO Member States and four UN agencies, agreed on a call for action to reduce the global burden of dementia by fostering a collective effort to advance research. 5 key findings →

Participants: 201 Evidence: low

Promoting Successful Cognitive Aging: A Ten-Year Update

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2021-01-01

A decade has passed since we published a comprehensive review in this journal addressing the topic of promoting successful cognitive aging, making this a good time to take stock of the field. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: high

The 6-year absolute risk was 12.0% (95% CI, 11.9% to 12.1%) in the control group (349 cases) and 9.5% (CI, 9.4% to 9.5%) in the intervention group (280 cases). 5 key findings →

Participants: 4,746 Evidence: high

Ultimately, we hope this project will provide the groundwork for future development of prevention and treatment strategies for delirium, designed to minimize the long term negative impact of delirium in older adults. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 550 Evidence: moderate

Vaccination is increasingly acknowledged as an effective preventive measure not only against specific infections, but also for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in high-risk patients. 1 key finding →

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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.

1,034 records (3.6% 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