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 58 studies in Prevention and risk published 2017 (page 1 of 3) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 58 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.

The FINGER intervention was beneficial regardless of participants' characteristics and can thus be implemented in a large elderly population at increased risk for dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high

We also determined the extent to which sex, educational attainment, and apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (APOE*4) carrier status were associated with decline. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 42,170 Evidence: moderate

MCI prevalence was 6.7% for ages 60-64, 8.4% for 65-69, 10.1% for 70-74, 14.8% for 75-79, and 25.2% for 80-84. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Midlife vascular risk factors are associated with increased risk of dementia in black and white ARIC Study participants. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 744 Evidence: moderate

In a study of 2.2 million adults in Ontario, Canada, people who lived very close to a major road (within 50 meters) had a small but statistically significant higher risk of developing dementia than those living farther away (over 300 meters), even after accounting for other health and demographic factors. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 2,200,000 Evidence: high

Being married is associated with reduced risk of dementia than widowed and lifelong single people, who are also underdiagnosed in routine clinical practice. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 15 Evidence: high

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

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

A systematic review was conducted to identify risk factors associated with the onset and progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 65 Evidence: high

Evidence that short-term, single-component physical activity interventions promote cognitive function and prevent cognitive decline or dementia in older adults is largely insufficient. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Trajectories of Depressive Symptoms Before Diagnosis of Dementia: A 28-Year Follow-up Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA Psychiatry 2017-07

This 28-year study tracked depressive symptoms in over 10,000 people and found that depression appearing later in life (closer to a dementia diagnosis) was linked to higher dementia risk, but depression in midlife (decades before diagnosis) was not. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 10,189 Evidence: moderate

We aimed to evaluate the criterion validity of the 2015 food-based Dutch dietary guidelines, which were formulated based on evidence on the relation between diet and major chronic diseases. 2 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 9,701 Evidence: moderate

Enhanced neural activation with blueberry supplementation in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Nutritional neuroscience 2017-02-21

Preclinical studies have shown that blueberry supplementation can improve cognitive performance and neural function in aged animals and have identified associations between anthocyanins and such benefits. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Leisure time physical activity and dementia risk: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. BMJ open 2017-10-22

We have reported, for the first time, the dose-response relationship between LTPA and dementia, further supporting the international PA guideline from the standpoint of dementia prevention. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis 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