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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 151–175 of 1,618 studies · free to read · tagged Risk Factors(page 7 of 65)· 30,980 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)
From OpenAlex; 16,452 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.
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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2008-09-21
These findings suggest that subtle elevation of CHD risk may negatively affect memory functioning even in otherwise healthy, non-demented older women without a history of heart disease. 3 key findings →
A rapidly growing literature strongly suggests that exercise, specifically aerobic exercise, may attenuate cognitive impairment and reduce dementia risk. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA·2009-08-01
Higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with slower MMSE cognitive decline but not consistently with other cognitive tests. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·PloS one·2009-05-13
The management of symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, autonomic symptoms and depression, and the encouragement of physical activity may provide the core elements for the most fruitful strategy to reduce falls in people with dementia. 2 key findings →
Personality is associated with cognitive decline in older adults, with effects comparable to established clinical and lifestyle risk factors. 5 key findings →
Lifestyle for Brain Health (LIBRA) may help in identifying and monitoring risk status in dementia-prevention programmes, by targeting modifiable, lifestyle-related risk factors. 2 key findings →
Ageing of the population, together with population growth, has brought along an ample increase in the number of older individuals living with dementia and disabilities. 5 key findings →
Cognitive impairment is present in approximately 30% of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and, especially when severe, has a negative impact on survival and caregiver burden. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA psychiatry·2016-05-01
The analytic cohort included 2488 black and white older adults with repeated depressive symptom assessments from baseline to year 5 who were free of dementia throughout that period. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA·1994-04-01
The data suggest that increased educational and occupational attainment may reduce the risk of incident AD, either by decreasing ease of clinical detection of AD or by imparting a reserve that delays the onset of clinical manifestations. 2 key findings →
Patients with osteoarthritis had excess all cause mortality compared with the general population (standardised mortality ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.41 to 1.70). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·BMC medical genomics·2011-01-26
The eMERGE (electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics) Network is an NHGRI-supported consortium of five institutions to explore the utility of DNA repositories coupled to Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems for advancing discovery in genome science. eMERGE also includes a special emphasis on the ethical, legal and social issues related to these endeavors. 2 key findings →
Controversies persist regarding the association between blood pressure (BP) and the risks of cognitive impairment and dementia due to inconsistent definitions of BP exposure and varying population characteristics. 5 key findings →
If the associations we observed are causal, then air pollution from traffic might be an important risk factor for vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
The potential determinants of cognitive decline identified in this study, in particular modifiable risk factors, should be tested in the context of randomised controlled trials. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-12-03
At baseline, 2,279 dementia-free participants with available blood samples were included (median age 72 (interquartile range, 61-81) years; 62% female). 4 key findings →
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.
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%),
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.
1,040 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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.