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 76–100 of 210 studies in Prevention and risk published 2025 (page 4 of 9) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 210 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.

Vaccination is increasingly acknowledged as an effective preventive measure not only against specific infections, but also for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in high-risk patients. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Making time for brain health: recognising temporal inequity in dementia risk reduction

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. The Lancet Healthy Longevity 2025-10-01

Time is an under-recognised social determinant of brain health, and is potentially as important as education or income for dementia risk. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic disorder that significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among diabetic patients. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The review analyzed 61 articles and identified a consistent positive correlation between physical activity and stress reduction. 5 key findings →

Participants: 61 Evidence: low

Faith-Based Lifestyle Intervention for Diabetes Prevention Among Adults in Bangladesh

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-10-20

Of the 799 participants (mean [SD] age, 46.2 [11.6] years; 424 women [53.1%]) randomized, 641 completed the 12-month follow-up and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 341 (n = 4 mosques) in the intervention group and 300 (n = 4 mosques) in the control group. 5 key findings →

Participants: 799 Evidence: high

Diet, Exercise, and Lifestyle in Glaucoma: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-10-27

Glaucoma is a major ocular neurodegenerative disease and a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide, with prevalence projected to exceed 110 million by 2040. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

Among 5,145 participants included in the analyses, 747 (14.5 %) reported hearing loss, including 207 Black adults and 199 White adults. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,145 Evidence: moderate

Recent studies support the influence of paternal lifestyle and diet before conception on the health of the offspring via epigenetic inheritance through sperm DNA methylation, histone modification, and small non-coding RNA (sncRNA) expression and regulation. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This narrative review examines the utility of gait digital biomarkers in Parkinson's disease (PD) research and clinical trials across four contexts: disease susceptibility/risk, disease progression, response to exercise, and fall prediction. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Nutrition and Lifestyle Interventions in Managing Dyslipidemia and Cardiometabolic Risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-02-23

Dyslipidemia, characterized by abnormal blood lipid levels, is a major public health concern due to its association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and other cardiometabolic disorders. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of risk factors, including abdominal obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, dyslipidemia (intended as an increase in triglyceride levels and a reduction in HDL cholesterol levels), and elevated fasting glucose, that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Gut Microbiota Modulation Through Mediterranean Diet Foods: Implications for Human Health

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-03-08

The Mediterranean diet (MD) is widely recognized for its health benefits, particularly in modulating gut microbiota composition and reducing the risk of metabolic, cardiovascular, and neurodegenerative diseases. 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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    Where this research is being discussed: events