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 36 studies in Prevention and risk published 2023 (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.

Trial of the MIND Diet for Prevention of Cognitive Decline in Older Persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 87 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2023-07-18

Among cognitively unimpaired participants with a family history of dementia, changes in cognition and brain MRI outcomes from baseline to year 3 did not differ significantly between those who followed the MIND diet and those who followed the control diet with mild caloric restriction. 5 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 604 Evidence: null result

These findings suggest that a hearing intervention might reduce cognitive change over 3 years in populations of older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline but not in populations at decreased risk for cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 858 Evidence: high

Further studies are warranted to develop and refine the specific MIND diet for different populations. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 224,049 Evidence: moderate

In this meta-analysis, the usage of hearing restorative devices by participants with hearing loss was associated with a 19% decrease in hazards of long-term cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 137,484 Evidence: moderate

Previous data have linked omega-3 fatty acids with risk of dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 103,651 Evidence: moderate

This randomized trial gave hearing aids plus counseling, or only general health education, to 977 older adults with untreated hearing loss, then tracked cognition for three years. 4 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 977 Evidence: moderate

Pooling 29 studies and over 2 million people, this meta-analysis found that people who were more physically active, especially at moderate-to-vigorous intensity, had a notably lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, though the protective association was stronger in studies with shorter follow-up periods. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,068,519 Evidence: moderate

Higher adherence to a MedDiet was associated with lower dementia risk, independent of genetic risk, underlining the importance of diet in dementia prevention interventions. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 60,298 Evidence: moderate

Changes in Alcohol Consumption and Risk of Dementia in a Nationwide Cohort in South Korea

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2023-02-01

In this cohort study of a Korean population, decreased risk of dementia was associated with maintaining mild to moderate alcohol consumption, reducing alcohol consumption from a heavy to a moderate level, and the initiation of mild alcohol consumption, suggesting that the threshold of alcohol consumption for dementia risk reduction is low. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 3,933,382 Evidence: moderate

Association Between Consumption of Ultraprocessed Foods and Cognitive Decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2023-02-01

A higher percentage of daily energy consumption of ultraprocessed foods was associated with cognitive decline among adults from an ethnically diverse sample. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 10,775 Evidence: moderate

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

Association Between Slow-Wave Sleep Loss and Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2023-12-01

From the 868 Framingham Heart Study participants who returned for a second PSG, this cohort included 346 participants with a mean age of 69 years (range, 60-87 years); 179 (52%) were female. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 346 Evidence: early

Educational Attainment and Dementia: Mediation by Mid-Life Vascular Risk Factors

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Annals of Neurology 2023-04-27

A substantial proportion of the relationship between education and dementia was mediated through mid-life vascular risk factors. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 13,368 Evidence: moderate

After adjusting for various risk factors, participants with low socioeconomic status (vs high) had increased risk for early-onset dementia (3·38, 2·61-4·37), and overall lifestyle mediated 3·2% (1·8-5·7) of the association. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 345 Evidence: moderate

Most risk factors under study (i.e., hyperglycemia, unhealthy diet, lower cardiorespiratory fitness, smoking, alcohol consumption, and hypertension) were significantly associated with lower retinal sensitivity and lower RNFL thickness. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,666 Evidence: low

Early metformin initiation was not associated with incident dementia in older adults newly diagnosed with diabetes. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 34,700 Evidence: null result

HRT introduction is associated with improved delayed memory and larger entorhinal and amygdala volumes in APOE4 carriers only. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,906 Evidence: moderate

Observational population studies indicate that prevention of dementia and cognitive decline is being accomplished, possibly as an unintended result of better vascular prevention and healthier lifestyles. 1 key finding →

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 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