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 1,476–1,500 of 3,292 studies · tagged Risk Factors(page 60 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 54 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-12-02
In this cohort of 2022 insulin-treated older adults with diabetes and ADRD (1011 CGM users and 1011 SMBG users; mean [SD] age, 76.4 [6.7] years; 1133 female [56.0%]), CGM use was significantly associated with lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96) and mortality (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.48-0.67) compared with SMBG use. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Drugs & Aging·2025-03-11
In older adults, trazodone is frequently prescribed for anxiety and insomnia owing to its perceived greater tolerability in comparison with benzodiazepines. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-03-17
In the Research Article "Magnitude and Time-Course of Dementia Risk in Stroke Survivors: A Population-Wide Matched Cohort Study" by Joundi et al., 1 the keys for Figure 3, A-D should indicate red for "Stroke," "Ischemic Stroke," "ICH," and "Stroke," respectively. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·BJU international·2020-03-19
The use of anticholinergic medications among patients with OAB was associated with an increased risk of new-onset dementia compared to beta-3 agonist users. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2014-02-05
Recent studies have reported that a rare nonsynonymous variant rs75932628-T in the TREM2 gene is associated with increased risk of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease (PD) in European-descended populations. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Brain communications·2022-08-17
Previous studies have explored the associations of retinal vessel calibre, measured from retinal photographs or fundus images using semi-automated computer programs, with cognitive impairment and dementia, supporting the concept that retinal blood vessels reflect microvascular changes in the brain. 3 key findings →
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 →
Among metabolic syndrome components, the effects of higher plasma glucose levels on cognitive decline (CD) have been considered in few studies. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2019-03-07
Lower HDL-C was significantly associated with a higher odds of cognitive impairment (OR 2.70 per 1 mmol/L reduction; 95% CI 1.25, 5.56; p = 0.011), whereas BMI, TG, glucose and HbA1c were not (all p > 0.05). 5 key findings →
CVRF prevalence was 62.8% (n=150) for high cholesterol, 45.2% (n=108) for hypertension, 10.9% (n=26) for atrial fibrillation, and 7.5% (n=18) for diabetes. 5 key findings →
Among 218 participants with 469 AF episodes we observed higher odds of AF following higher 24-hour mean levels of PM10 and O3, reaching statistical significance for PM10 levels averaged over the previous 12-24-hours [OR 1.10 (95%CI 1.01-1.19) per IQR of PM10 (7.8 µg/m3)]. 3 key findings →
Among the air toxics, higher 1,3-butadiene levels we estimated a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95 % CI: 1.00, 1.25) for incident dementia/CIND per IQR increase in 1,3-butadiene exposures. 5 key findings →
As indicated by Cox regression modeling, dementia risk of low-educated individuals was not significantly different between ethnic groups but was related to having an APOE e4 allele (hazard ratio [HR] 1.89), depression (HR 1.67), stroke (HR 1.60), and smoking (HR 1.32). 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.