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 1,776–1,800 of 3,292 studies · tagged Risk Factors(page 72 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 51 out of 100.·Obesity·2025-01-28
General and central obesity trajectories beyond midlife with persistently high or increasing patterns were significantly associated with an increased risk of developing cognitive decline and dementia in late life. 3 key findings →
The combinations that were both highly prevalent and had the most detrimental effect on global cognition were: hearing loss and physical inactivity for the dyad (mean difference in change score = -0.07 SD; 95 % CI: -0.09 to -0.06; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.28), hearing loss, physical inactivity, and hypertension for the triad (mean difference in change score = -0.07; 95 % CI: -0.09 to -0.06; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.28), and hearing loss, physical inactivity, hypertension, and sleep disturbance for the tetrad (mean difference in change score = -0.05; 95 % CI: -0.07 to -0.03; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.20). 5 key findings →
To investigate the response to an invitation to participate in a blended mobile Health intervention among adults living in deprived areas. 2 key findings →
The Cardiovascular Health Study is a population-based, longitudinal study designed to evaluate factors related to the onset, course, and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke in adults aged 65 years and older. 4 key findings →
A rise in the incidence of bullous pemphigoid (BP) was documented recently in Europe, and the main risk factors for BP remain unknown. 2 key findings →
ApoE on high-density lipoproteins is primarily responsible for lipid transport and cholesterol homeostasis in the central nervous system (CNS). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurology·2010-08-25
The results of this study suggest that hyperinsulinemia and hyperglycemia caused by insulin resistance accelerate NP formation in combination with the effects of APOE epsilon4. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2009-03-01
In generalized estimating equation models (adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and years of education), higher cholesterol (total cholesterol and LDL-C) concentrations and history of diabetes were associated with faster cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2009-12-23
Insulin resistance (IR) is the main pathological condition underlying vascular disorders, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, which are well established risk factors for cognitive decline and Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-03-01
In the oldest old, the presence of the APOE epsilon2 allele (APOE2) was associated with a somewhat reduced risk of dementia, but paradoxically was associated with increased Alzheimer disease (AD) neuropathology. 3 key findings →
Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, colon cancer, breast cancer, dementia and depression constitute a cluster of diseases, which defines 'a diseasome of physical inactivity'. 2 key findings →
The hippocampus is particularly vulnerable to the neurotoxic effects of obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypoxic brain injury, obstructive sleep apnoea, bipolar disorder, clinical depression and head trauma. 1 key finding →
Obesity is a growing worldwide health problem, affecting many people due to excessive saturated fat consumption, lack of exercise, or a sedentary lifestyle. 1 key finding →
Multiple factors affect cognitive health, such as age-related changes in the brain, injuries, mood disorders, substance abuse, and diseases. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurology·2005-01-01
Blood pressure and indicators of small-vessel disease in the brain may be associated with atrophy of structures affected by Alzheimer pathology. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurology·2006-12-01
Subjects were 233 older Catholic clergy in the Religious Orders Study, who underwent detailed annual evaluations, including neuropsychological testing, and brain autopsy at time of death (mean age 86 years, 45% men). 2 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.