Get help now — free helplines

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 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call 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) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed 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.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 31 studies in Risk factors published 2020 · free to read (page 1 of 2) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 31 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Risk factors” covers

Risk factors — Conditions, exposures and habits linked to a higher or lower chance of dementia, and how strong each link is.

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.

Association of Delirium With Long-term Cognitive Decline: A Meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2020-11-01

Of 1583 articles, data subjected from the 24 studies (including 3562 patients who experienced delirium and 6987 controls who did not) were included in a random-effects meta-analysis for pooled effect estimates and random-effects meta-regressions to identify sources of study variance. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 3,562 Evidence: high

Prognostic factors for severity and mortality in patients infected with COVID-19: A systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. PloS one 2020-11-17

Identified prognostic factors can help clinicians and policy makers in tailoring management strategies for patients with COVID-19 infectious disease while researchers can utilise our findings to develop multivariable prognostic models that could eventually facilitate decision-making and improve patient important outcomes. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 207 Evidence: high

Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Mental Health in Adults: A Systematic Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Nutrients 2020-01-01

The most prominent results indicated that high total intake of fruits and vegetables, and some of their specific subgroups including berries, citrus, and green leafy vegetables, may promote higher levels of optimism and self-efficacy, as well as reduce the level of psychological distress, ambiguity, and cancer fatalism, and protect against depressive symptoms. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 5,911 Evidence: high

Controversies persist regarding the association between blood pressure (BP) and the risks of cognitive impairment and dementia due to inconsistent definitions of BP exposure and varying population characteristics. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Increased α-synuclein egress in serum neuronal exosomes precedes the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease, persists with disease progression and in combination with clusterin predicts and differentiates Parkinson's disease from atypical parkinsonism. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 314 Evidence: moderate

Association of Neighborhood-Level Disadvantage With Alzheimer Disease Neuropathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2020-06-11

The sample consisted of 447 decedents (249 men [56%]; mean [SD] age, 80.3 [9.5] years; median year of death, 2011) spanning 24 years of donation. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 24 Evidence: low

As researchers across the globe have focused their attention on understanding SARS-CoV-2, the picture that is emerging is that of a virus that has serious effects on the vasculature in multiple organ systems including the cerebral vasculature. 5 key findings →

Participants: 19 Evidence: low

Geographic Variation in Neurologist Density and Neurologic Care in the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2020-12-23

Mean density of neurologists varied nearly 4-fold from the lowest to the highest density quintile (9.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.2-10.2] vs 43.1 [95% CI 37.6-48.5] per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Approximately 10% of dementia patients have idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH), an expansion of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-filled brain ventricles. iNPH and Alzheimer's disease (AD) both exhibit sleep disturbances, build-up of brain metabolic wastes and amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques, perivascular reactive astrogliosis, and mislocalization of astrocyte aquaporin-4 (AQP4). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Participants in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (n = 156) were younger, more often female, and less often college-educated or white than those in less disadvantaged neighborhoods (n = 1963). 3 key findings →

Participants: 156 Evidence: low

The mean (SD) age of the 4,631 participants was 67.6 (4.89) years, and 2579 (55.7%) were women. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,943 Evidence: low

Exposure to high neighborhood‐level socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with negative health outcomes. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 645 Evidence: moderate

Approximately 2% of those aged ≥60 years had dementia, lower than published estimates. 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Evidence: moderate

We combine the MAX data with Medicare claims to identify hospital admissions, our main outcome variable, and with state and county data on the percent of individuals receiving HCBS versus nursing home care. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

State case fatality ranged from 3.32% in North Carolina to 9.26% in Connecticut, but for ALs in these states it was 12.89% and 31.59%, respectively. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Rural patients with ADRD had 1.23 higher adjusted odds (P < .001) of going to the ED for a preventable visit compared to urban counterparts. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

After accounting for individual and county level covariates, we found that a 10 percentage‐point increase in HCBS breadth among individuals with ADRD was associated with 1.1 percentage point reduction (P < 0.01) in the likelihood of NH placement. 3 key findings →

Participants: 365 Evidence: low

OF IMPACT: The results contribute new evidence towards an emerging ecological model of cognitive health. 5 key findings →

Participants: 16,404 Evidence: low

Residence in a food desert (11·1 %, n 411) was not significantly associated with perceived access to healthy foods, most grocery shopping behaviours or dietary behaviour, but was significantly associated with primarily shopping at a superstore or supercentre v . a large grocery store (OR = 1·32; 95 % CI 1·02, 1·71; P = 0·03) and higher BMI ( b = 1·14; 95 % CI 0·36, 1·93; P = 0·004). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

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.

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 tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomized / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multicenter collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed    Where this research is being discussed: events