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.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Air pollution and environmental exposures

Background Urban green space (UGS) may support cognitive health in later life, but longitudinal evidence from rapidly aging Asian cities remains limited. We examined the association between officially designated UGS coverage and incident Alzheimer's disease (AD) among older adults in metropolitan South Korea. Methods This population-based retrospective cohort study used the Korean National Health Insurance Service database linked to health screening data. We included 95,822 adults aged 65 years or older residing in seven metropolitan areas who underwent health screening in 2009–2010. UGS coverage in 2010 was defined as the proportion of officially designated parks and open green spaces within each residential district and categorized into quartiles. Participants were followed from January 1, 2011, until incident AD, death, or December 31, 2023. Cox proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results During follow-up, 21,733 incident AD cases occurred, with incidence rates of 24.71, 21.04, 19.14, and 22.17 per 1,000 person-years across Q1–Q4. In the fully adjusted model, higher UGS coverage was associated with modestly lower AD risk (aHR 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92–0.999] for Q2, 0.90 [0.86–0.94] for Q3, and 0.94 [0.90–0.97] for Q4; P for trend < 0.001). Conclusions Higher UGS coverage was associated with a lower risk of incident AD among older adults in urban South Korea. These findings support further investigation of urban green infrastructure as a potentially modifiable environmental factor for cognitive health in aging populations.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 4 of 4; Effect reported 3 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 32 of the 62 points it could be judged on, which is 52 of 100. Raw total 52 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 52 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 52 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 7 / 12 A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 4 / 10 Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 4 / 4 95,822 participants
Effect reported 3 / 3 Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 32 / 62 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100.
Total 52 / 100 Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Lee, H., Cho, Y., Park, S. J., Kang, J. H., Chung, J., Yu, J., et al. (2026). Association between urban green space coverage and incident Alzheimer’s disease among older adults in metropolitan South Korea: a population-based retrospective cohort study. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10506133/v1

Vancouver

Lee H, Cho Y, Park SJ, Kang JH, Chung J, Yu J, et al. Association between urban green space coverage and incident Alzheimer’s disease among older adults in metropolitan South Korea: a population-based retrospective cohort study. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10506133/v1.

BibTeX

@article{lee2026-e65dac19,
  author  = {Lee, H. and Cho, Y. and Park, S. J. and Kang, J. H. and Chung, J. and Yu, J. and Park, Y. J. and Seo, D. and others},
  title   = {{Association between urban green space coverage and incident Alzheimer’s disease among older adults in metropolitan South Korea: a population-based retrospective cohort study}},
  journal = {Research Square},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-10506133/v1},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10506133/v1}
}

Related studies in Risk factors

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →