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 326–350 of 1,004 studies in Prevention and risk (page 14 of 41) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these 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.

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

Impact of Vegan and Vegetarian Diets on Neurological Health: A Critical Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-02-28

Evidence suggests that vegan and vegetarian diets, when well planned, can be rich in phytonutrients and antioxidants, which have been associated with lower levels of inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

To explore the nature of the olfactory dysfunction associated with Parkinson's disease (PD), 81 PD patients who scored well on a cognitive screening test were administered the 40-odorant University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test; 38 were additionally given a forced-choice phenylethyl alcohol odor detection threshold test. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 24 Evidence: moderate

Risk of Dementia in Individuals With Emergency Department Visits or Hospitalizations Due to Cannabis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-06-01

Individuals with cannabis use severe enough to require hospital-based care were at increased risk of a new dementia diagnosis compared with those with all-cause hospital-based care or the general population. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 6,086,794 Evidence: moderate

Given the inconsistent evidence regarding hearing aid use and reduced dementia risk, this study evaluates whether hearing aid use, particularly effective use, is associated with lower probable dementia risk among hearing-impaired older adults. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 61,089 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

Inclusion and exclusion criteria were met in 303 patients, and 25 (8.3%) presented to the ED with delirium. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 303 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

Predicting cognitive decline: a dementia risk score vs. the Framingham vascular risk scores

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2013-04-01

The CAIDE dementia and Framingham risk scores predict cognitive decline in late middle age but the Framingham risk scores may have an advantage over the dementia risk score for use in primary prevention for assessing risk of cognitive decline and targeting of modifiable risk factors. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Exercise at midlife may reduce the odds of dementia in older adulthood, suggesting that exercise interventions should be explored as a potential strategy for delaying disease onset. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 264 Evidence: moderate

These findings underscore the importance of blood pressure control in midlife to mitigate dementia risk. 5 key findings →

Participants: 229,976 Evidence: low

Intentional weight loss through diet was associated with cognitive improvement in patients with MCI. 4 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: low

Leisure time physical activity and dementia risk: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. BMJ open 2017-10-22

We have reported, for the first time, the dose-response relationship between LTPA and dementia, further supporting the international PA guideline from the standpoint of dementia prevention. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

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

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

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

↑ 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