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 1,951–1,975 of 3,258 studies · tagged Risk Factors(page 79 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.
• Limited evidence links air pollution-lifestyle interplay to cardiovascular disease. • Study includes over 5.8 million participants from arid Northwestern China. • Air pollution in dust-prone areas is linked to cardiovascular disease. • Exercise is crucial in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease from air pollution. • Air pollution and unhealthy lifestyles jointly heighten cardiovascular risk. 4 key findings →
The 12 risk factors account for 60.3% of dementia cases in China, including 14.0% in early life, 8.8% in midlife, and 37.5% in later life. 5 key findings →
Childhood obesity is a growing global health concern, with established links to physical activity, nutrition, and, increasingly, to prenatal and perinatal factors. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·BMC Cancer·2025-02-21
The highest annual increase in age-standardized incidence was observed among women aged 40-49 who were overweight (AAPC 4.0%, 95% CI 0.5-7.7%), currently smoking (AAPC 3.3%, 95% CI 0.1-6.6%) or moderately physically active (AAPC 2.9%, 95% CI 0.3-5.6%). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Nutrients·2025-07-21
Despite recent advances in the treatment of obesity, lifestyle medicine remains foundational to the treatment of individuals with obesity, regardless of the modality chosen by the patient with the guidance of the clinician they are working with, including in conjunction with, as appropriate, anti-obesity medications and metabolic surgery. 5 key findings →
Also, there are no licensed treatments specifically for VD.[3] What sets VD apart from other dementias are the following factors: The etiology of VD is clearly associated with brain tissue loss and dysfunction secondary to vascular pathophysiology in which hypertension seems to be the main reason.[4] While the exact cellular mechanisms are still not clear, it does imply that VD may potentially be largely preventable through better cardiovascular-metabolic risk modification. 5 key findings →
Between 1992-2021, global AD cases increased from 4.078 million to 9.837 million, while the global age-standardised incidence rate (ASIR) remained relatively stable, rising slightly from 117.7 to 119.8 per 100 000. 5 key findings →
While educational disparities in dementia incidence are well-known, whether and to what extent they persist beyond dementia onset is less explored. 4 key findings →
The direct associations identified may present potential intervention targets, while the indirect relationships suggest that other factors are influential in the pathway linking social isolation and loneliness with chronic disease and dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Brain Communications·2025-01-01
Having three or more vascular risk factors (odds ratio = 1.23, 95% confidence interval [1.04-1.47]), actively smoking (odds ratio = 1.54, 95% confidence interval [1.29-1.82]), being overweight (odds ratio = 1.46, 95% confidence interval [1.22-1.74]), and having diabetes (odds ratio = 1.29, 95% confidence interval [1.09-1.53]) were associated with higher odds of subjective cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
= 0.005). Cox regression analysis revealed that polypharmacy was significantly associated with a reduced risk of MCI progression to dementia (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 0.78) after adjusting for covariates. 5 key findings →
High LDL-C (≥160 mg/dL) increased AD risk across all groups {hazard ratio (HR): 1.23 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10-1.38],p<0.001;HR: 1.45 (95% CI: 1.08-1.93),p=0.013;HR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.10-1.42),p<0.001, respectively}, whereas low LDL-C (<70 mg/dL) showed higher VD risk in those not taking cholesterol-lowering medication [HR: 3.02 (95% CI: 1.73-5.27),p<0.001].Low HDL-C (≤40 mg/dL) was associated with increased AD and VD risk in non-users. 2 key findings →
Midlife hearing loss was associated with smaller brain volumes, accelerated decline in executive function, accelerated accrual of white matter abnormalities, and a near doubling of dementia risk, suggesting a potential causal or biomarker role for midlife hearing loss in the prevention of late‐life dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Pure Amsterdam UMC·2026-01-01
During a median 13.7 years of follow-up, prediabetes (n=52,693) was associated with higher risks of vascular dementia (hazard ratio (HR):1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14-1.61), stroke (HR:1.09; 95% CI: 1.01-1.16), ischemic stroke (HR:1.10; 95% CI: 1.02-1.19), and intracerebral hemorrhage (HR:1.19; 95% CI: 1.01-1.39) compared with normoglycemia, after adjustment for major confounding factors and across extensive sensitivity analyses. 5 key findings →
During a median 13.7 years of follow-up, prediabetes (n=52,693) was associated with higher risks of vascular dementia (hazard ratio (HR):1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14-1.61), stroke (HR:1.09; 95% CI: 1.01-1.16), ischemic stroke (HR:1.10; 95% CI: 1.02-1.19), and intracerebral hemorrhage (HR:1.19; 95% CI: 1.01-1.39) compared with normoglycemia, after adjustment for major confounding factors and across extensive sensitivity analyses. 5 key findings →
This work was supported by a Crossover grant (Maintaining Optimal Cognitive Functioning In Aging [MOCIA] 17611) of the Dutch Research Council (NWO), granted in December 2019. 5 key findings →
A total of 266 older adults with hypertension were surveyed in this study, of whom 108 reported having fallen once or more in the past year. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Otology & Neurotology·2025-02-24
The control cohort (n = 36.5 million) was 1:1 PSM for age and sex with the HL cohort (n = 1.77 million) in which 0.28% of patients developed delirium compared to 0.74% in the HL cohort (OR 2.66, 95% CI = 2.58-2.75). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Brain Sciences·2025-07-29
In 3413 participants (mean age: 59 ± 14 years, 53.4% women), 11% had prevalent CVD or AF, 8% had prevalent CVD, and 4% had prevalent AF. 5 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.