SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Identifying risk factors of young-onset dementia and evaluating evidence hierarchy: a meta-analysis and umbrella review.

J Prev Alzheimers Dis · 2026-01-01

DOI: 10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100467PMID: 41478824

Open accessMeta-Analysis; Systematic Review; review-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundYoung-onset dementia (YOD) directly affects the working-age population. The premature onset of dementia intensifies peer caregiving responsibilities and diverts medical and nursing resources. While modifiable risk factors for late-onset dementia have been well established, uncertainty remains regarding the applicability of these findings to YOD. We aim to identify modifiable risk factors for YOD and evaluate the strength of evidence.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline from inception to 22 May 2025 for epidemiological studies on non-genetic risk factors for YOD. We used random-effects meta-analyses with the inverse variance method to pool relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A series of statistical tests were designed to classify the strength of evidence of significant associations as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, or weak evidence.ResultsFrom 25,731 initial and 2289 updated search records, 36 studies examining 31 non-genetic risk factors for YOD were identified. Of the 31 associations examined, 21 were nominally statistically significant at P ConclusionWe found that the risk of dementia in young individuals may be closely related to neuropsychiatric symptoms and clinical alcohol disorders. Future research should further validate these findings and explore intervention strategies to reduce dementia risk in younger individuals.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.