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 26–50 of 159 studies in Drug development · tagged Risk Factors (page 2 of 7) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 159 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Drug development” covers

Drug development — Candidate treatments on their way through the pipeline, from the laboratory to early human trials.

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.

Buse, MD PhDDiabetes Center, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (J.B.B.), and the LEADER Publication Committee on behalf of the LEADER Trial Investigators*Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M18-1569 SectionsSupplemental MaterialAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Background: Comorbidities and complications associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) increase with age, making treatment of elderly persons with this condition challenging. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Liraglutide might slow down memory function decline in diabetic patients in early, and possibly preclinical stages of the disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Pharmacologic Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Annals of Internal Medicine 2000-07-04

DeFronzo Metrics Cited ByDiscovery of α-Glucosidase Inhibitors from Marine Microorganisms: Optimization of Culture Conditions and Medium CompositionBurdock fructooligosaccharide as an α-glucosidase inhibitor and its antidiabetic effect on high-fat diet and streptozotocin-induced diabetic miceThe antioxidant and antidiabetic potentials of polyphenolic-rich extracts of Cyperus rotundus (Linn.)From Pharmacogenetics to Gene Expression: Implications for Precision Medicine in DiabetesA narrative review of current trends in liraglutide: insights into the unmet needs in management of type 2 diabetes and obesitySynthesis, antidiabetic, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities of novel hydroxytriazenes based on sulpha drugsRNA-Seq Analysis of the Liver Transcriptome Reveals the Networks Regulating Treatment of Sitagliptin Phosphate plus Fuzhujiangtang Granule in the Zucker Diabetic Fatty RatsEverestmab, a novel long-acting GLP-1/anti GLP-1R nanobody fusion protein, exerts potent anti-diabetic effectsSPION‐Decorated Exosome Delivered BAY55‐9837 Targeting the Pancreas through Magnetism to Improve the Blood GLC ResponseA novel self-sufficient biocatalyst based on transaminase and pyridoxal 5′-phosphate covalent co-immobilization and its application in continuous biosynthesis of sitagliptinShared Pathological Mechanisms Between Diabetes Mellitus and Neurodegenerative DiseasesEffects of Lifestyle Modification and Anti-diabetic Medicine on Prediabetes Progress: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisGlibenclamide Reduces Primary Human Monocyte Functions Against Tuberculosis Infection by Enhancing M2 PolarizationNaringin enhances reverse cholesterol transport in high fat/low streptozocin induced diabetic ratsA novel strategy to prepare the precursor peptide of liraglutideImpact of metformin on patients with advanced head and neck cancer undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapyEffects of Different Doses of Metformin on Serum Fatty Acid Composition in Type 2 Diabetic RatsInsulin resistance and cognitive performance in type 2 diabetes — The Maastricht studyDesign and synthesis of novel thiazolidine-2,4-diones as hypoglycemic agentsMetformin in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment: Results of a Pilot Randomized Placebo Controlled Clinical TrialMetformin and lifestyle modification in polycystic ovary syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysisGlibenclamide reduces pro-inflammatory cytokine production by neutrophils of diabetes patients in response to bacterial infectionNa + /H

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Genetic variation in sulfonylurea targets was associated with a lower risk of AD, and future studies are warranted to clarify the underlying mechanistic pathways between sulfonylureas and AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 326,885 Evidence: low

Meta-analysis of modifiable risk factors for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2015-08-20

Effective interventions in diet, medications, biochemical exposures, psychological condition, pre-existing disease and lifestyle may decrease new incidence of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Overall, 214,442 matched individuals initiated GLP-1 RAs or DPP4i (109,731 women, mean age 58.6 years [SD 12], and mean HbA1c 7.7% [1.4]). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), originally developed for type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity, are increasingly recognized for their significant impact on the central nervous system, leading to reports of both beneficial and adverse mental health effects. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: high

Metformin mitigates dementia risk among individuals with type 2 diabetes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Clinical diabetes and endocrinology 2024-05-10

This mini-narrative review explores the relationship between diabetes and dementia, focusing on the potential mitigating role of metformin in reducing cognitive decline among individuals with type 2 diabetes. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high

In the general population, the use of statins, but not of non-statin cholesterol-lowering drugs, was associated with a lower risk of AD compared with never use of cholesterol-lowering drugs. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 6,992 Evidence: moderate

The pooled trial included 88,381 participants who received prescriptions for GLP-1 agonists (n = 12,351), DPP-4 inhibitors (n = 43,850), or sulfonylureas (n = 32,216) at baseline and were followed for an average of 4.3 years. 5 key findings →

Participants: 12,351 Evidence: low

Mary Poppins famously asserted that "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down," but this bon mot is likely wrong in almost every way. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 74,148 Evidence: high

Use of metformin, DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 analogs and SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with lower risk of dementia in patients with diabetes. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 250 Evidence: moderate

Antidiabetic medications and risk of cognitive disorders in type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. PLoS ONE 2026-08-24

Among 1,528,885 adults with type 2 diabetes (mean age, 58 years; 49.2% women), GLP-1 receptor agonists plus metformin were associated with lower incidence of vascular dementia (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.37-0.57), mild cognitive disorder (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95), and Alzheimer disease (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.31-0.70). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,528,885 Evidence: moderate

We identified GLP-1 receptor agonist initiation compared to DPP-4 inhibitors initiation was associated with a reduced risk of AD (hazard ratio [HR] ≤ 0.69 and P value < 0.001) and SGLT-2 inhibitor initiation compared to DPP-4 inhibitor initiation was associated with a reduced risk of AD (HR ≤ 0.67 and P value < 0.001). 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Alzheimer disease (AD) may develop after the onset of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and the risk of AD may depend on the antidiabetic drug administered. 2 key findings →

Participants: 85 Evidence: low

Use of antihypertensives and the risk of Parkinson disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2008-02-06

Current long-term use of calcium channel blockers was associated with a significantly reduced risk of a Parkinson disease diagnosis, while the risk was not materially altered for users of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or beta-blockers and, with less statistical precision, for users of angiotensin II antagonists. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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    Where this research is being discussed: events