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 401–425 of 1,004 studies in Prevention and risk (page 17 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.

Follow-up occurred during a mean period of 6.8 +/- 3.4 years, and subjects had a mean of 2.9 +/- 1.6 follow-up visits. 3 key findings →

Participants: 213 Evidence: low

Although most falls do not result in injury, the fact that residents with dementia fall more often than their counterparts without dementia leaves them with a higher overall risk of sustaining injurious falls over time. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Recent findings Both of these leisure-time activities were associated with significant reductions in the risk of dementia in longitudinal studies. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Cross-sectional associations support the view that enhancing cognitive reserve may benefit cognition, and maintenance of cognitive health may be supported by a healthy and active lifestyle, in later life. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Interventions that have even quite modest effects at the individual level could drastically reduce the future burden of dementia associated with Alzheimer's disease at the population level. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

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

Systematic review of health behavioral risks and cognitive health in older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. International psychogeriatrics 2009-11-03

The review demonstrates accumulating evidence supporting health behavioral effects in reducing the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

Of 502 535 participants in UK Biobank, 143 215 met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analyses. 68 500 (47·8%) of the participants were pre-frail and 5565 (3·9%) were frail. 4 key findings →

Participants: 535 Evidence: moderate

A prolonged preclinical phase of more than two decades before the onset of dementia suggested that initial brain changes of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the symptoms of advanced AD may represent a unique continuum. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Food combination and Alzheimer disease risk: a protective diet

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-04-12

Simultaneous consideration of previous knowledge regarding potentially AD-related nutrients and multiple food groups can aid in identifying food combinations that are associated with AD risk. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort 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

The overall PAF for the 14 modifiable risk factors was 59.5% (95% CI = 58.5-60.5). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,949 Evidence: moderate

We included 394,255 individuals including 184 incident cases of CD and 459 of UC after median follow-up of 13.6 years (4,889,910 person-years). 5 key findings →

Participants: 394,255 Evidence: moderate

Among ACHIEVE participants in the top quartile of predicted risk, 3-year cognitive decline in the hearing intervention was 61.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.7%-94.1%) slower than the control. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,692 Evidence: moderate

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

↑ 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