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 42 studies in Prevention and risk with an author at University of California, San Francisco (US) (page 1 of 2) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 42 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.

The findings suggest that risk factors associated with ADRDs have changed over the past decade and differ based on sex and race and ethnicity. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 378 Evidence: high

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

With no effective treatments for cognitive decline or dementia, improving the evidence base for modifiable risk factors is a research priority. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 48,522 Evidence: high

Association of Race and Ethnicity With Incidence of Dementia Among Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. JAMA 2022-04-01

Dementia is a significant public health challenge and may have greater incidence among older adults from underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 90 Evidence: moderate

Dementia risk after traumatic brain injury vs nonbrain trauma: the role of age and severity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2014-12-01

Of these, 4361 (8.4%) developed dementia compared with 6610 patients with NTT (5.9%) (P Conclusions and relevance Among patients evaluated in the ED or inpatient settings, those with moderate to severe TBI at 55 years or older or mild TBI at 65 years or older had an increased risk of developing dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 164,661 Evidence: moderate

Mild TBI and risk of Parkinson disease: A Chronic Effects of Neurotrauma Consortium Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Neurology 2018-04-18

Among military veterans, mTBI is associated with 56% increased risk of PD, even after adjusting for demographics and medical/psychiatric comorbidities. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 325,870 Evidence: moderate

The negative association between depression treatment and incident dementia was significant in the increasing and chronically low courses, highlighting the necessity of timely interventional strategies before depression progresses to a chronically severe state. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 354,313 Evidence: moderate

In this cohort study of more than 350 000 veterans, even mild TBI without LOC was associated with more than a 2-fold increase in the risk of dementia diagnosis. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 178 Evidence: moderate

Hearing Loss and Falls

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery 2025-03-20

A total of 5 071 935 participants were included from 27 studies; approximately 49.2% of participants were female, and 14 studies were conducted in Asia, 7 in North America, 3 in Europe, and 3 in Oceania, represented by Australia. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 935 Evidence: high

A combination of modifiable vascular risk factors in midlife is highly predictive of the likelihood of dementia decades later. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,767 Evidence: moderate

Among eligible participants (n = 705,061), 264,294 individuals (37.5% of eligible participants) initiated any statin during 2001-2010 ("initiators"), of whom 249,613 (94.4%) were matched with 255,937 unique noninitiators to create the analytic sample (322,358 unique participants; mean age at baseline = 67.4 years; 55.1% female). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 322,358 Evidence: high

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

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

Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids could have neuroprotective properties against dementia, which is becoming a major global public health issue. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Observational studies support the use of NSAIDs for prevention of AD, but RCT do not. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

There is an urgent need to identify lifestyle activities that reduce functional decline and dementia associated with population aging. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Potential for primary prevention of Alzheimer's disease: an analysis of population-based data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. The Lancet Neurology 2014-07-13

Researchers analyzed population-based data and relative risks from existing meta-analyses to estimate the population-attributable risk of Alzheimer's disease worldwide, in the USA, Europe, and the UK for seven potentially modifiable risk factors.

Evidence: low

Race and Ethnicity, Lifestyle, Diet, and Survival in Patients With Prostate Cancer

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-02-26

A total of 2603 men with nonmetastatic PCa (mean [SD] age, 69.6 [7.1] years) were followed up, and 1346 deaths were documented, including 356 (24.6%) from CVD and 197 (14.6%) from PCa. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,603 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 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