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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Prevention and risk

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Increasing oily fish intake has been proposed as a strategy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention, but evidence for long-term benefit remains limited. Using observational data from 2012 cognitively healthy adults in the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort, we emulated a target trial of seven isocaloric fish intake strategies to estimate 21-year AD risk. We modeled repeated measures of diet and adjusted for pre-baseline diet, baseline covariates, and time-varying confounding using the parametric g-formula. The estimated 21-year AD risk ranged from 10.33% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.41%, 12.92%) under no fish intake to 9.98% (95% CI, 6.64%, 13.31%) under ≥ 3 servings/week. Risk ratios relative to no intervention were close to one and risk differences were close to zero across all strategies. Substituting fish for meat yielded similar results. We observed no clear long-term protective effect of sustained fish intake on AD risk, though exploratory analyses suggested a possible protective effect among older participants during earlier follow-up, warranting further investigation. This study illustrates the use of target trial emulation to estimate long-term dietary effects while accounting for time-varying confounding and competing risks in nutritional epidemiology.

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

APA 7th

Zhao, Y., Jacques, P. F., Lajous, M., Sebastiani, P., & Ordovás, J. M. (2026). Sustained fish intake and 21-year Alzheimer's disease risk: a target trial emulation. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwag140

Vancouver

Zhao Y, Jacques PF, Lajous M, Sebastiani P, Ordovás JM. Sustained fish intake and 21-year Alzheimer's disease risk: a target trial emulation. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2026. doi:10.1093/aje/kwag140. PMID: 42506897.

BibTeX

@article{zhao2026-42506897,
  author  = {Zhao, Y. and Jacques, P. F. and Lajous, M. and Sebastiani, P. and Ordovás, J. M.},
  title   = {{Sustained fish intake and 21-year Alzheimer's disease risk: a target trial emulation}},
  journal = {American Journal of Epidemiology},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1093/aje/kwag140},
  pmid    = {42506897},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwag140}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Why it matters

This analysis of long-term fish intake found no clear protective effect on Alzheimer's disease risk over 21 years. It is observational, and the authors say the possible benefit seen in older participants during earlier follow-up needs more study.

Study details

Limitations

Single, mostly white cohort; wide confidence intervals; exploratory hint of benefit in older participants early in follow-up not confirmed.

How this study scored 52/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 3 of 4; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 3 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 0 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year 0 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 1 of 3; Multicenter collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 49 of the 94 points it could be judged on, which is 52 of 100. Total 52 of 100.49 of the 94 points we could judge = 52 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 49 of the 94 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (American Journal of Epidemiology)
Journal's citation record 3 / 4 American Journal of Epidemiology: journal h-index 416 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 7 / 12 A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “null-result” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 2,012 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)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 0 / 7 Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026
Impact for its field and year 0 / 6 Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 0 / 4 Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Barro Ordovas holds only 5 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score
Institution's track record 1 / 3 Tufts University: institution h-index 1,045 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration 2 / 3 OpenAlex lists 6 institution(s) in 3 countries
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42506897)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 49 / 94 Scored on 18 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 49 of the 94 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100.
Total 52 / 100 —

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

Read the original

May need a subscription Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 10 Oct 2026), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Prevention and risk

Also tagged “incidence”

1,084 studies in the library carry the topic tag “incidence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,084 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Prevention and risk

See all studies in Prevention and risk →