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 751–775 of 1,004 studies in Prevention and risk (page 31 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.

The findings indicate that stronger ESG practices significantly reduce corporate risk, enhance financial stability, and mitigate regulatory and market volatility exposure. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Gut microbiota and associated metabolites: key players in high-fat diet-induced chronic diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Gut Microbes 2025-04-22

Excessive intake of dietary fats is strongly associated with an increased risk of various chronic diseases, such as obesity, diabetes, hepatic metabolic disorders, cardiovascular disease, chronic intestinal inflammation, and certain cancers. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

MIND diet scores from the screener showed strong positive correlation (r = 0.71, ρ = 0.70, p < 0.001) and comparable ranking ability (63% correctly classified, 1% grossly misclassified, kw = 0.67) compared to those from the FFQ, as well as significant associations with nutrient profiles. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The 'monoamine hypothesis' is insufficient in approaching the aetiology of psychiatric disorders or in developing novel therapies. 2 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Identifying the elderly at risk for malnutrition. The Mini Nutritional Assessment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Clinics in geriatric medicine 2002-11-01

In community-dwelling elderly persons, the MNA detects risk of malnutrition and life-style characteristics associated with nutritional risk while albumin levels and the BMI are still in the normal range. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Ageing and diabetes: implications for brain function

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. European journal of pharmacology 2002-04-01

Diabetes mellitus is associated with moderate cognitive deficits and neurophysiological and structural changes in the brain, a condition that may be referred to as diabetic encephalopathy. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The aims of this study were to identify risk factors for hip fracture in men aged 50 years or more. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

White matter abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are associated with dementia and include white matter hyperintensities (WMH; also termed leukoaraiosis) and visible perivascular spaces (PVS). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Omega-3 fatty acids and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Prostaglandins, leukotrienes, and essential fatty acids 2009-06-12

More than a dozen epidemiological studies have reported that reduced levels or intake of omega-3 fatty acids or fish consumption is associated with increased risk for age-related cognitive decline or dementia such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Global obesity is a pandemic status, estimated to affect over 2 billion people, that has resulted in an enormous strain on healthcare systems worldwide. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mediterranean diet and cognitive function in older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care 2010-01-01

A high adherence to the Mediterranean diet has been associated with slower cognitive decline, with reduced risk of mild cognitive impairment conversion to Alzheimer's disease and with reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Adherence to Mediterranean Diet and Implications for Cardiovascular Risk Prevention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-06-12

Significant correlations emerged between higher MEDAS scores and BMI (r = −0.53, p < 0.01), FM% (r = −0.49, p < 0.01), VAT (r = −0.63, p < 0.01), and cIMT (r = −0.88, p < 0.01). 5 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 27,380 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