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 1–25 of 30 studies in Prevention and risk published 2010 (page 1 of 2) · 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.

Increasing crystallised intelligence and fruit and vegetable consumption and eliminating depression and diabetes are likely to have the biggest impact on reducing the incidence of dementia, outweighing even the effect of removing the principal known genetic risk factor. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,433 Evidence: moderate

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

Is physical activity a potential preventive factor for vascular dementia? A systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Aging & mental health 2010-05-01

We conclude that there is evidence supporting the hypothesis that physical activity is likely to prevent the development of VaD, and should be highlighted as part of secondary prevention programmes in people at risk for cerebrovascular disease. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,378 Evidence: high

To examine the relationship between smoking and Alzheimer's disease (AD) after controlling for study design, quality, secular trend, and tobacco industry affiliation of the authors, electronic databases were searched; 43 individual studies met the inclusion criteria. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Vitamin D and risk of cognitive decline in elderly persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Archives of internal medicine 2010-07-01

Low levels of vitamin D were associated with substantial cognitive decline in the elderly population studied over a 6-year period, which raises important new possibilities for treatment and prevention. 5 key findings →

Participants: 858 Evidence: low

Impaired glucose regulation is a defining characteristic of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) pathology and has been linked to increased risk of cognitive impairment and dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Physical exercise, aging, and mild cognitive impairment: a population-based study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-01-01

In this population-based case-control study, any frequency of moderate exercise performed in midlife or late life was associated with a reduced odds of having MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,324 Evidence: moderate

Systematic review of the literature using the American Academy of Neurology's evidence-based methods. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

We reported the interim findings of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to examine the effects of a mind body physical exercise (Tai Chi) on cognitive function in Chinese subjects at risk of cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 171 Evidence: high

Follow-up occurred during a mean period of 6.8 +/- 3.4 years, and subjects had a mean of 2.9 +/- 1.6 follow-up visits. 3 key findings →

Participants: 213 Evidence: low

Food combination and Alzheimer disease risk: a protective diet

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-04-12

Simultaneous consideration of previous knowledge regarding potentially AD-related nutrients and multiple food groups can aid in identifying food combinations that are associated with AD risk. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Sixty-six studies met inclusion criteria for the relationship between physical activity and functional independence, and 34 were included with a cognitive function outcome. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Because of the heterogeneity of populations and interventions, meta-analyses were not possible and results are presented in narrative form. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Caffeine as a protective factor in dementia and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2010-01-01

Caffeine has well-known short-term stimulating effects on central nervous system, but the long-term impacts on cognition have been less clear. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

This study illustrates the need to identify these individuals and to make provisions among social service agencies to monitor their well-being regularly and provide a higher level of support when needs are identified. 3 key findings →

Participants: 141,460 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

There is a large body of evidence to suggest that improving periconceptional folate status reduces the risk of neonatal neural tube defects. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Vascular risk factor detection and control may prevent Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2010-04-10

The vascular hypothesis of Alzheimer disease (AD), first proposed by us in 1993, provides substantial evidence that suggests vascular risk factors (VRF) play a critical role in the development of cognitive decline and AD during aging. 1 key finding →

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