alzhub.org
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.

Research

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 46 studies in Prevention and risk published 2020 (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 46 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.

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Association of Blood Pressure Lowering With Incident Dementia or Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 85 out of 100. JAMA 2020-05-19

In this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, blood pressure lowering with antihypertensive agents compared with control was significantly associated with a lower risk of incident dementia or cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 96,158 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Physical Activity and Exercise in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: An Umbrella Review of Intervention and Observational Studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2020-10-01

Supported by very low-to-moderate certainty of evidence, physical activity/exercise has a positive effect on several cognitive and noncognitive outcomes in people with MCI and dementia, but RCTs, with low risk of bias/confounding, are still needed to confirm these relationships. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 28,205 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association between socioeconomic status and the development of mental and physical health conditions in adulthood: a multi-cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. The Lancet. Public health 2020-01-31

During 1 110 831 person-years at risk, we recorded 245 573 hospitalisations in the Finnish cohorts; the corresponding numbers in the UK study were 60 946 hospitalisations in 186 572 person-years. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,838 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association of Neighborhood-Level Disadvantage With Cerebral and Hippocampal Volume

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2020-04-01

For cognitively unimpaired individuals, living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods was associated with significantly lower cerebral volumes, after controlling for maximal premorbid (total intracranial) volume. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 951 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Higher risk of dementia in English older individuals who are overweight or obese

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. International journal of epidemiology 2020-08-01

Our results suggest that having an increased body weight or abdominal obesity are associated with increased dementia incidence. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 453 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association of body mass index with risk of cognitive impairment and dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews 2020-05-30

Controversies persist about the associations of body mass index (BMI) with risk of cognitive impairment and dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Effects of physical exercise on cognitive function of older adults with mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics 2020-05-12

PE improves global cognitive function (SMD = 0.348 [95 % CI 0.166 to 0.529]; p = 0.0001), executive function (SMD = 0.213 [95 % CI 0.026 to 0.400]; p = 0.026) and delayed recall (SMD = 0.180 [95 % CI 0.002 to 0.358]; p = 0.047). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,077 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Development and validation of an interpretable deep learning framework for Alzheimer's disease classification

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2020-06-01

Alzheimer's disease is the primary cause of dementia worldwide, with an increasing morbidity burden that may outstrip diagnosis and management capacity as the population ages. 5 key findings →

Participants: 417 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Exceptionally low likelihood of Alzheimer's dementia in APOE2 homozygotes from a 5,000-person neuropathological study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Nature communications 2020-02-03

Each additional copy of the apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) allele is associated with a higher risk of Alzheimer's dementia, while the APOE2 allele is associated with a lower risk of Alzheimer's dementia, it is not yet known whether APOE2 homozygotes have a particularly low risk. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Prevalence, risk factors, and management of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in adults aged 60 years or older in China: a cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. The Lancet. Public health 2020-12-01

Overall age-adjusted and sex-adjusted prevalence was estimated to be 6·0% (95% CI 5·8-6·3) for dementia, 3·9% (3·8-4·1) for Alzheimer's disease, 1·6% (1·5-1·7) for vascular dementia, and 0·5% (0·5-0·6) for other dementias. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Associations between physical frailty and dementia incidence: a prospective study from UK Biobank

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. The lancet. Healthy longevity 2020-11-02

Of 502 535 participants in UK Biobank, 143 215 met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analyses. 68 500 (47·8%) of the participants were pre-frail and 5565 (3·9%) were frail. 4 key findings →

Participants: 535 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Multidomain Interventions to Prevent Cognitive Impairment, Alzheimer's Disease, and Dementia: From FINGER to World-Wide FINGERS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2020-01-01

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia are a global public health priority, and prevention has been highlighted as a pivotal component in managing the dementia epidemic. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Recommendations of the 5th Canadian Consensus Conference on the diagnosis and treatment of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2020-07-29

Since 1989, four Canadian Consensus Conferences on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD) have provided evidence-based dementia guidelines for Canadian clinicians and researchers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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