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 926–950 of 1,004 studies in Prevention and risk (page 38 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.

These disasters, along with other endogenous causes not addressed in this article, have significantly hindered the country’s progress toward key global objectives, including the SFDRR. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Exercise injuries present a significant challenge in medicine and public health, impacting exercise performance, career longevity, and overall quality of life. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

In response to these challenges, the study recommends a paradigm shift in urban planning towards the adoption of future-oriented and participatory approaches. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remain the main cause of mortality and are generally among the leading causes of morbidity worldwide, thus placing an immense burden on health care. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive decline and dementia represent escalating global health challenges with limited therapeutic options, highlighting the need for effective preventive strategies. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Apolipoprotein E in lipoprotein metabolism, health and cardiovascular disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Pathology 2018-12-28

Apolipoprotein E (apoE), a 34 kDa circulating glycoprotein of 299 amino acids, predominantly synthesised in the liver, associates with triglyceride-rich lipoproteins to mediate the clearance of their remnants after enzymatic lipolysis in the circulation. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

[Nutrition and cognitive impairment]

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Nutricion hospitalaria 2016-07-12

Dementia, closely linked to environmental predisposing factors such as diet, is a public health problem of increasing magnitude: currently there are more than 35 million patients with Alzheimer´s disease, and is expected to exceed 135 million by 2050. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the Brigif Reservoir as a pioneering nature-based infrastructure solution for mitigating flood risk in the Kemang area, a significant business district in South Jakarta, and to provide a potential raw water supply for city parks. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Ground robot technologies in wildfire risk reduction. The viewpoint of the fire service

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Progress in Disaster Science 2025-04-01

Fire service perceives the robot use in wildfire risk reduction more broadly than is reflected by currently developed disaster robots and existing disaster risk reduction concepts. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Persons with disabilities (PWDs) are among the most at-risk groups during disaster situations due to various physical, sensory, cognitive, and systemic challenges that hinder their ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from crises. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Integrating Ubuntu: embedding African philosophy into disaster risk reduction and management

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Frontiers in Sociology 2025-09-03

Rather than being the direct result of physical hazards, disasters emerge through socially constructed systems of vulnerability shaped by governance failures, structural inequalities, and historical injustices (Blaikie et al., 2014;Tierney, 2014;Gaillard, 2010). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

This paper provides a critical interpretive synthesis review of fo++ur previously published literature reviews of disaster risk reduction (DRR) education for children. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mean performance on knowledge of dementia risk factor mitigation strategies significantly increased after viewing the animation (p < .001), with a clinically meaningful effect (mean change = 3.63). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The construction sector is among the most dangerous industries, recognized for its significant rate of accidents with even more serious consequences, especially in developing countries. 3 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