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 50 studies in Prevention and risk with an author at Karolinska Institutet (SE) (page 1 of 2) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 50 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.

Modifiable vascular and lifestyle-related risk factors have been associated with dementia risk in observational studies. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 631 Evidence: high

Of 2846 articles identified, 94 studies were eligible, with up to 14 529 participants for WMH, 16 012 participants for BI, 15 693 participants for CMB, and 4587 participants for PVS. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 529 Evidence: high

The APOE ε4 carriers and noncarriers were not significantly different at baseline (except for serum cholesterol level). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high

The FINGER intervention was beneficial regardless of participants' characteristics and can thus be implemented in a large elderly population at increased risk for dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high

The FINGER is at the forefront of international collaborative efforts to solve the clinical and public health problems of early identification of individuals at increased risk of late-life cognitive impairment, and of developing intervention strategies to prevent or delay the onset of cognitive impairment and dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,200 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

Supported by very low-to-moderate certainty of evidence, physical activity/exercise has a positive effect on several cognitive and noncognitive outcomes in people with MCI and dementia, but RCTs, with low risk of bias/confounding, are still needed to confirm these relationships. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 28,205 Evidence: high

These findings extend the evidence base for multidomain lifestyle interventions to populations historically under-represented in dementia research, supporting their feasibility and scalability as strategies to reduce cognitive decline risk amid the rapidly growing burden of dementia in low-income and middle-income countries. 3 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 1,065 Evidence: moderate

Ageing of the population, together with population growth, has brought along an ample increase in the number of older individuals living with dementia and disabilities. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial 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

Influence of social network on occurrence of dementia: a community-based longitudinal study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2000-04-01

Those individuals living alone, and those without any close social ties, both had an adjusted relative risk for developing dementia of 1.5 (95% CI 1.0-2.1 and 1.0-2.4, respectively). 2 key findings →

Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate

Potentially modifiable risk factors from early and midlife, with a cumulative detrimental effect on the brain, contribute to risk of dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 310 Evidence: moderate

Total numbers of global DALYs grew 6·1% (95% UI 4·0-8·1), from 2·64 billion (2·46-2·86) in 2010 to 2·80 billion (2·57-3·08) in 2023, but age-standardised DALY rates, which account for population growth and ageing, decreased by 12·6% (11·0-14·1), revealing large long-term health improvements. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Diet Quality and Dementia Risk in Older Adults With Alzheimer Pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-06-01

Over a mean follow-up of 8.4 years (range, Conclusions and relevance This cohort study of older adults found that adherence to a dietary pattern with lower inflammatory potential was associated with lower dementia risk among individuals with AD pathology and broader neurobiological risk. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,865 Evidence: early

Vitamin B(12) and folate in relation to the development of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurology 2001-05-01

A population-based longitudinal study in Sweden, the Kungsholmen Project A random sample of 370 nondemented persons, aged 75 years and older and not treated with B(12) and folate, was followed for 3 years to detect incident AD cases. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) probably results from an interaction between genetic and environmental factors. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,449 Evidence: low

Self-reported sleep problems may increase the risk for dementia, and depressive symptoms may explain this relationship. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

14 IPD-Work studies were assessed and six studies were excluded due to missing outcome data and unavailable data for pooling, resulting in the inclusion of eight studies with 124 909 participants. 5 key findings →

Participants: 909 Evidence: low

Despite mortality due to communicable diseases, poverty, and human conflicts, dementia incidence is destined to increase in the developing world in tandem with the ageing population. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The incidence of stroke and dementia are diverging across the world, rising for those in low- and middle-income countries and falling in those in high-income countries. 3 key findings →

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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 (3.7% 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