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 851–875 of 1,004 studies in Prevention and risk (page 35 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.

Diet and Alzheimer's disease risk factors or prevention: the current evidence

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Expert review of neurotherapeutics 2011-05-01

Poorer cognitive function and an increased risk of vascular dementia (VaD) were found to be associated with a lower consumption of milk or dairy products. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Involvement of free radicals in dementia of the Alzheimer type: a hypothesis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 1990-09-01

We propose that increased formation of oxygen-derived free radicals, such as the superoxide and hydroxyl species, may be responsible for progressive neural degeneration in dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Age-related hearing loss and dementia risk across the lifespan: mechanisms, equity, and prevention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Neuroscience 2025-08-28

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) has emerged as a significant and potentially modifiable risk factor for neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) is at its 10th anniversary amidst a rapidly changing climate, which, together with social vulnerabilities, have led to significant impacts on human health and well-being. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Statins show mixed results in CKD and ESRD, with limited benefits in reducing cardiovascular events in dialysis patients. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dementia is becoming a major public health problem in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), with prevalence increasing due to demographic transitions, increasing life expectancy, and increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Diet and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. JACC CardioOncology 2025-08-29

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer remain the leading causes of mortality in the United States, where poor diet has surpassed smoking as the leading risk factor for death, and life expectancy has hit a plateau as CVD mortality has stagnated over the past decade. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This review seeks to understand what urban planning and management can do to reduce disaster risk and help cities adapt to the impacts of climate change. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Prevention of chronic disease may generate health and longevity benefits but does not reduce burden of dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Hippocampal synaptic transmission enhanced by low concentrations of nicotine

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Nature 1996-10-01

Nicotine obtained from tobacco can improve learning and memory on various tasks and has been linked to arousal, attention, rapid information processing, working memory, and long-term memories that can cause craving years after someone has stopped smoking. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Significance of long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in human health

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Clinical and translational medicine 2017-07-27

In the last decades, the development of new technologies applied to lipidomics has revitalized the analysis of lipid profile alterations and the understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms of lipid metabolism, together with their involvement in the occurrence of human disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

[Alzheimer's disease. Current evidence on the preventive role of nutrition]

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Nutricion hospitalaria 2023-11-22

several dietary components have been positively associated with AD prevention, including intake of complex carbohydrates, fiber, omega-3, plant-based proteins, vitamins (folates, choline, vitamin D, C, B6 and B9), zinc, some bioactive compounds such as flavonols and probiotics. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Older adults with a new dementia diagnosis were 2.8 times more likely to reduce alcohol consumption than those without such a diagnosis. 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