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 126–150 of 1,004 studies in Prevention and risk (page 6 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.

Hormone replacement therapy increases cardiovascular and thromboembolic risk when started many years after the menopause. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,196 Evidence: high

Socioeconomic differences in dementia risk can be partly explained by differences in modifiable health conditions and lifestyle factors. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,346 Evidence: moderate

Scale of benefit is comparable with in-person training, indicating its potential as a public health intervention. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,912 Evidence: high

Cardiovascular diseases and risk of dementia in the general population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 2025-03-05

Observationally, CVDs were associated with risk of all incident outcomes in meta-analyses, with hazard ratios up to 7.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.20, 7.92). 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,373 Evidence: high

A high-protein and alcohol dietary pattern was negatively associated with cortical thickness in the whole brain (Beta: -0.011; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.018 to -0.003), and with an Alzheimer's disease cortical thickness signature score (Beta: -0.013; 95% CI: -0.024 to -0.001). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 610 Evidence: moderate

Emerging evidence of brain injury on risk of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) have resulted in interest in therapeutic potential of omega-3 fatty acids (n-3FA). 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Association between vaccinations and risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2025-10-30

Adult vaccinations, particularly against herpes zoster, influenza, pneumococcus and Tdap, are associated with a lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 104,031,186 Evidence: moderate

We found no significant association for exposure to nitrogen oxides (five studies, n=241 409, pooled adjusted HR per 10 μg/m 3 increase, 1·05 [0·97-1·13]; I 2 =44%), PM 10 (four studies, n=246 440, pooled adjusted HR per 15 μg/m 3 increase, 1·52 [0·80-2·87]; I 2 =82%), or annual ozone (four studies, n=419 972, pooled adjusted HR per 45 μg/m 3 increase, 0·82 [0·35-1·92]; I 2 =69%), with moderate to considerable heterogeneity between studies in these pooled analyses. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 24,030,527 Evidence: moderate

Over a median follow-up of 10·0 years (IQR 5·1-21·3), high physical activity levels were associated with reduced risks of all-cause dementia (n=146 effect sizes; RR 0·80 [95% CI 0·75-0·86]; I 2 =97·4%), Alzheimer's disease (n=59; 0·79 [0·70-0·90]; I 2 =91·3%), and vascular dementia (n=21; 0·71 [0·58-0·87]; I 2 =77·5%); however, associations varied by domain. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,227,297 Evidence: high

Physical exercise as a preventive or disease-modifying treatment of dementia and brain aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Mayo Clinic proceedings 2011-09-01

A rapidly growing literature strongly suggests that exercise, specifically aerobic exercise, may attenuate cognitive impairment and reduce dementia risk. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms and other symptoms of the climacteric. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Incidence and prediction of falls in dementia: a prospective study in older people

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. PloS one 2009-05-13

The management of symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, autonomic symptoms and depression, and the encouragement of physical activity may provide the core elements for the most fruitful strategy to reduce falls in people with dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 179 Evidence: high

The mean (SD) age was 73.7 (6.0) years, and the mean (SD) follow-up time was 3.7 (1.2) years. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 223 Evidence: moderate

Our results suggest that adherence to the MeDi is associated with better cognitive performance and lower dementia rates in Greek elders. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,865 Evidence: moderate

Personality is associated with cognitive decline in older adults, with effects comparable to established clinical and lifestyle risk factors. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 13,987 Evidence: high

Dual-task performances can be improved in patients with dementia: a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Neurology 2010-05-05

Classification of evidence This study provides Class II evidence that specific dual-task training improves dual-task performance during walking under complex S3 conditions in geriatric patients with mild to moderate dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Lifestyle for Brain Health (LIBRA) may help in identifying and monitoring risk status in dementia-prevention programmes, by targeting modifiable, lifestyle-related risk factors. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 949 Evidence: high

↑ 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