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 101–125 of 3,258 studies · tagged Risk Factors(page 5 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.
Subjects experiencing multisensory impairments concurrent with visual impairment demonstrated a negative association with cognitive function. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2026-05-01
Among 2 184 847 Danish citizens aged between 65 and 95 years, there were 3024 individuals with DLB (mean [SD] age, 78 [6], 1894 [62.6%] male) and 3808 with PDD (mean [SD] age, 78 [6], 2400 [63.0%] male) who were matched with 30 240 and 38 080 controls, respectively. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-02-11
This long-term follow-up of the SPRINT randomized trial tested whether intensively lowering systolic blood pressure (to below 120, vs. the standard target of below 140) reduces the risk of thinking problems in adults 50+ with hypertension. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.·Diabetes Care·2016-02
Pooling data on over 2.3 million people worldwide, this analysis confirmed that type 2 diabetes raises dementia risk by roughly 60% in both men and women, but the excess risk of vascular dementia specifically was notably higher in women than men. 4 key findings →
The FINGER is at the forefront of international collaborative efforts to solve the clinical and public health problems of early identification of individuals at increased risk of late-life cognitive impairment, and of developing intervention strategies to prevent or delay the onset of cognitive impairment and dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2022-07-01
A large fraction of dementia cases in the US were associated with potentially modifiable risk factors, especially for Black and Hispanic individuals. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2008-07-07
Observational epidemiological studies have shown a positive association between hypertension and risk of incident dementia; however, the effects of antihypertensive therapy on cognitive function in controlled trials have been conflicting, and meta-analyses of the trials have not provided clear evidence of whether antihypertensive treatment reduces dementia incidence. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.·Neurology·2005-01-01
The presence of multiple cardiovascular risk factors at midlife substantially increases risk of late-life dementia in a dose dependent manner. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.·GeroScience·2022-07-06
Cohort studies suggest that the Mediterranean diet is associated with better global cognition in older adults, slower cognitive decline and lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
In a large dementia prevention trial with 6-year follow-up, dropout was associated with older age, poorer cognitive function, symptoms of depression, and disability at baseline. 4 key findings →
In patients without baseline cognitive dysfunction, short-term data are most compatible with no adverse effect of statins on cognition, and long-term data may support a beneficial role for statins in the prevention of dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2021-03-01
In this cohort study of US Medicare beneficiaries, dual sensory impairment was prevalent in older adults and associated with increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100.·JAMA·2017-04-01
An increasing number of midlife vascular risk factors was significantly associated with elevated amyloid SUVR; this association was not significant for late-life risk factors. 5 key findings →
These results suggest that regular exercise is associated with a delay in onset of dementia and Alzheimer disease, further supporting its value for elderly persons. 5 key findings →
The overall weighted PAF for potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia was 39·5% (95% CI 37·5-41·6) in China (n=2162 participants), 41·2% (39·1-43·4) in India (n=2004), and 55·8% (54·9-56·7) in our Latin American sample (n=12 865). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2021-02-01
Among 34 349 participants, 26 088 who self-reported Black or White race, were free of stroke and dementia, and had covariate data at or before the first cognitive assessment were included for analysis. 2 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.