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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 3,201–3,225 of 3,258 studies · tagged Risk Factors(page 129 of 131)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 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.
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-07-07
Polygenic scores summarise genetic predisposition to a trait, but a population-level accuracy figure cannot tell a clinician whether a given prediction is reliable for the person in front of them. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-10-12
Greater diversity of social participation was associated with better long-term cognitive maintenance among older adults with hypertension and/or diabetes. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-09-30
Recruitment (88.0%) and protocol fidelity (100%) met or exceeded prespecified progression criteria, whereas retention and follow-up data availability were 59.1% (13/22), slightly below the predefined 60% criterion. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-07-27
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the main cause of death and disability in the United States in people younger than 35 years old and is a common cause of wartime injuries. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-07-15
Multidomain interventions have small but consistent beneficial effects on cognitive measures, suggesting the potential to reduce cognitive impairment and dementia risk. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-07-29
Specific disease clusters involving diabetes, oral disease, sensory impairment, and osteoporosis were associated with suspected dementia and neuropsychiatric heterogeneity, supporting integrated multimorbidity-oriented screening and care. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-07-28
Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are associated with increased risk of neurodegenerative disease, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD); however, the mechanisms by which TBI promotes AD pathogenesis remain poorly understood. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-10-20
These findings indicate that the cognitive impact of hearing loss depends on structural resources, highlighting the need to integrate sensory health and social context in dementia prevention efforts. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·PsyArXiv·2026-07-01
All Big Five domains had prospective associations with multiple dementia risk factors and with cognitive impairment, cognitive function, and self-reported memory. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-06-10
Crossmodal plasticity refers to the phenomenon by which typical sensory areas respond to stimulation in other sensory modalities when their main input is absent or reduced. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-06-09
Age-related hearing loss is a leading modifiable risk factor for dementia and is increasingly recognized as a non-motor feature of Parkinson’s disease (PD). 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-05-28
Small palpebral fissure is an independent and previously unnoticed risk factor for glaucoma surgical failure, affecting both minimally invasive and filtration procedures. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-03-10
The impact of age and hearing loss on the brain has garnered significant attention, as both factors have been implicated in the development of cognitive impairment or dementia. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-10-13
Absolute BPV was associated with mortality, and DBP and MAP variability with overall stroke, after accounting for glycemic status and mean blood pressure. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-10-09
Seasonally normalized 25(OH)D identifies a reproducible state of systemic vulnerability while reducing exposure misclassification caused by calendar timing of measurement. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-10-15
We estimated associations per SD slower walking or smaller adaptability using linear, logistic, and Cox regression (10-year follow-up), overall and in women and men. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-09-30
Newly diagnosed postoperative depression was associated with increased dementia risk, particularly in patients aged < 65 years, supporting prospective evaluation as a potential marker of long-term cognitive risk. 4 key findings →
10 of the 3,247 studies in this tag, 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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.