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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 901–925 of 3,292 studies · tagged Risk Factors(page 37 of 132)· 28,180 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; 13,658 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 61 out of 100.·Diabetes care·2024-10-01
Diabetes and even prediabetes are associated with accelerated brain aging, especially among men and people with poor cardiometabolic health. 4 key findings →
Ageing and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with declines in muscle function and cardiorespiratory fitness, resulting in an impaired capacity to perform daily activities and maintain independent functioning. 2 key findings →
The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial will provide important information on the risks and benefits of intensive blood pressure treatment targets in a diverse sample of high-risk participants, including those with prior cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and those aged ≥75 years. 4 key findings →
The possibility that history of depression is a risk factor for dementia needs to be taken seriously and explanations of the association need to be further researched. 2 key findings →
The relationships between total serum cholesterol (TC) and dementia and between TC and cognitive decline were investigated in a systematic review of 18 prospective studies. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2002-03-01
Silent brain infarcts and white matter lesions are frequently seen on magnetic resonance imaging in healthy elderly people and both are associated with an increased risk of stroke and dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2009-03-01
These results help explain the "obesity paradox" as differences in dementia risk across time are consistent with physical changes in the trajectory toward disability. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Neurology·2020-09-28
At baseline, participants (n = 168) were cognitively normal and primarily middle-aged (mean 56.4 years, SD 10.9 years) and had both vascular risk factor status and proximal CSF biomarkers available. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-09-01
The aim of this observational study was to evaluate whether the treatment of VRF is associated with a slower cognitive decline in patients who have AD without cerebrovascular disease (CVD). 4 key findings →
Although memory complaints are associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease in persons with cognitive impairment as well as in persons with normal cognition, they are commonly considered of less importance than objective cognitive measures. 4 key findings →
Plasma proteins affect biological processes and are common drug targets but their role in the development of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias remains unclear. 4 key findings →
Whether the association of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) with dementia differs by sex remains unclear, and the role of socioeconomic, lifestyle, genetic, and medical factors in their association is unknown. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·The Lancet·2017-09-01
Globally, low back pain, migraine, age-related and other hearing loss, iron-deficiency anaemia, and major depressive disorder were the five leading causes of YLDs in 2016, contributing 57·6 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 40·8-75·9 million [7·2%, 6·0-8·3]), 45·1 million (29·0-62·8 million [5·6%, 4·0-7·2]), 36·3 million (25·3-50·9 million [4·5%, 3·8-5·3]), 34·7 million (23·0-49·6 million [4·3%, 3·5-5·2]), and 34·1 million (23·5-46·0 million [4·2%, 3·2-5·3]) of total YLDs, respectively. 5 key findings →
Age- and education-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for ADRD increased as neighborhood disadvantage increased, to 1.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.91) in the most disadvantaged quintile compared to the least disadvantaged quintile, with a significant linear trend (p = 0.012). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·The Lancet·2025-10-01
Total numbers of global DALYs grew 6·1% (95% UI 4·0-8·1), from 2·64 billion (2·46-2·86) in 2010 to 2·80 billion (2·57-3·08) in 2023, but age-standardised DALY rates, which account for population growth and ageing, decreased by 12·6% (11·0-14·1), revealing large long-term health improvements. 5 key findings →
The 6-year absolute risk was 12.0% (95% CI, 11.9% to 12.1%) in the control group (349 cases) and 9.5% (CI, 9.4% to 9.5%) in the intervention group (280 cases). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-09-15
-statistics 0.82-0.83). We found a significant association between all-cause dementia and multimarker CSVD scores, which was independent of the FSRP as well as its individual components. 3 key findings →
10 of the 3,281 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
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 (3.7% 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.