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 676–700 of 1,004 studies in Prevention and risk (page 28 of 41) · 27,780 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.

This study suggests that violence is a significant phenomenon and that all health workers, especially nurses, are at risk of suffering aggressive assaults. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Western countries are experiencing aging populations and increased longevity; thus, the incidence of dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) in these countries is projected to soar. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Age-related hearing impairment (ARHI) is the most common sensory impairment in the aging population; a third of individuals are affected by disabling hearing loss by the age of 65. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Noncommunicable disease now contributes to the World Health Organization top 10 causes of death in low-, middle- and high-income countries. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

To evaluate the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation therapies (CRTs) for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Hearing impairment and dementia: cause, catalyst or consequence?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of Neurology 2025-05-16

The relationship between hearing impairment and dementia has attracted significant attention, the 2024 Lancet Commission report identifying hearing loss as the largest modifiable risk factor for dementia from mid-life. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In recent decades, an increasing body of research has highlighted significant scientific evidence linking adherence to the Mediterranean diet with a reduced risk of chronic diseases. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

• Limited evidence links air pollution-lifestyle interplay to cardiovascular disease. • Study includes over 5.8 million participants from arid Northwestern China. • Air pollution in dust-prone areas is linked to cardiovascular disease. • Exercise is crucial in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease from air pollution. • Air pollution and unhealthy lifestyles jointly heighten cardiovascular risk. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The 12 risk factors account for 60.3% of dementia cases in China, including 14.0% in early life, 8.8% in midlife, and 37.5% in later life. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Childhood obesity is a growing global health concern, with established links to physical activity, nutrition, and, increasingly, to prenatal and perinatal factors. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Incidence trends of early-onset breast cancer by lifestyle risk factors

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. BMC Cancer 2025-02-21

The highest annual increase in age-standardized incidence was observed among women aged 40-49 who were overweight (AAPC 4.0%, 95% CI 0.5-7.7%), currently smoking (AAPC 3.3%, 95% CI 0.1-6.6%) or moderately physically active (AAPC 2.9%, 95% CI 0.3-5.6%). 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Lifestyle Medicine for Obesity in the Era of Highly Effective Anti-Obesity Treatment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-07-21

Despite recent advances in the treatment of obesity, lifestyle medicine remains foundational to the treatment of individuals with obesity, regardless of the modality chosen by the patient with the guidance of the clinician they are working with, including in conjunction with, as appropriate, anti-obesity medications and metabolic surgery. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Increasing evidence suggests that vascular risk factors contribute to neurodegeneration, cognitive impairment and dementia. 2 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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