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
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 3,151–3,175 of 3,301 studies · tagged Risk Factors(page 127 of 133)· 28,580 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; 14,058 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 33 out of 100.·Stem cell reports·2021-12-16
The apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) variant is the strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), while the APOE2 allele is protective. 1 key finding →
Using a fit‐for‐purpose validated algorithm, the 2019 annual prevalence and incidence of ADRD in the Medicare population aged 65+ with Part D enrollment was estimated to be 18% and 5.8% respectively. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·JMIR Aging·2025-04-24
Fifty-four participants (~8% response rate) from the MindCrowd web-based cohort (mean age of 62.39 years; 39 females; and 23 APOE ε4 carriers) completed 75 trials of Super G. Results show that Super G performance was significantly associated with each of the targeted risk factors. 5 key findings →
Diet and specific nutritional factors, alone and in combination with other lifestyle approaches, have an important role in decreasing the risk for dementia. 2 key findings →
This study aimed to investigate the association between delirium and incident dementia in elderly (≥65 years) type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients, addressing the heightened dementia risk in this population. newly diagnosed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2007. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·BMJ Open Quality·2025-04-01
Between April 2020 and March 2021, the number of fall-related emergency admissions in England for adults over 65 years was 1933 per 100 000 people. 1 key finding →
This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of regular dental scaling by evaluating the association between the frequency of dental scaling and the risk of dementia in individuals with moderate to severe periodontal disease. 2 key findings →
The prevalence of hypertension showed statistically significant spatial clustering (global Moran’s I=0.442, p<.001), with high-high clusters concentrated in rural eup-myeon areas and low-low clusters in urban dong areas. 4 key findings →
This influential review article proposed that Alzheimer's disease could be considered a brain-specific form of diabetes, arguing that impaired insulin and insulin-like growth factor signaling in the brain drives amyloid buildup, tau tangles, oxidative stress, and energy failure - the hallmark features of Alzheimer's - and coined the term 'type 3 diabetes' for this concept. 4 key findings →
Down's syndrome (DS) is characterized by several pathological aspects leading to an increased susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases, infections, leukemia, endocrine alterations. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Journal of Diabetes·2019-08-21
She presented compelling data that showed the vastly improved ease of use and overall satisfaction of nasal glucagon vs its injectable counterpart. 5 key findings →
The 2024 Lancet Commission estimates 45% of dementias worldwide are preventable if 14 potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia were eliminated. 2 key findings →
This review explores the complex relationship between neuroinflammation and cognitive decline in individuals with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100.·BJPsych Open·2025-06-01
Across the literature, it is evident that health inequalities currently exist and exacerbate the disparities in the care of BAME dementia patients. 5 key findings →
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), a prevalent sleep-disordered breathing condition, is increasingly recognized as a modifiable risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia. 1 key finding →
10 of the 3,290 studies in this tag that have a study page, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%),
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.
1,034 records (3.6% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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.