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 301–325 of 1,004 studies in Prevention and risk (page 13 of 41) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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 past and ongoing increase in midlife obesity prevalence will contribute significantly to the future prevalence of dementia and public health measures to reduce midlife obesity are simultaneously primary prevention measures to reduce the risk of dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Among 2946 participants (mean [SD] age, 74.9 [4.6] years; 1751 [59.4] female; 637 Black [21.6%] and 2309 White [78.4%] individuals), 1947 participants (66.1%) had audiometric hearing loss, and 1097 (37.2%) had self-reported hearing loss. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,946 Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular Health Among Rural and Urban US Adults—Healthcare, Lifestyle, and Social Factors

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. JAMA Cardiology 2025-03-31

The study population consisted of 27 172 adults, including 4256 adults (14.0%) residing in rural areas, 14 741 (54.8%) in small or medium metropolitan areas, and 8175 (31.2%) in urban areas. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 172 Evidence: low

The study sample included 1,375 participants free of dementia and stroke at baseline (mean age 68 ± 6y, 54 % females). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,375 Evidence: moderate

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

Most risk factors under study (i.e., hyperglycemia, unhealthy diet, lower cardiorespiratory fitness, smoking, alcohol consumption, and hypertension) were significantly associated with lower retinal sensitivity and lower RNFL thickness. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,666 Evidence: low

There were interactions between the dietary patterns and APOE ε4 status in relation to incident dementia (interaction p value threshold of < 0.1), while no evidence of interactions were found between the dietary patterns and the AD-PRSs. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This meta-analysis highlights sleep management as a pivotal modifiable factor in reducing the risk of all-cause cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis 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

Based on analysis of prospective and nonprospective studies, NSAID exposure was associated with decreased risk of Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Risk factors for non-motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2018-04-23

Non-motor symptoms (NMS) of Parkinson's disease can be predominant as the disease advances, thereby constituting a major source of disease burden for patients and caregivers. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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

Mahjong and TC can preserve functioning or delay decline in certain cognitive domains, even in those with significant cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →

Design: open-label trial 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 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