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 32 studies in Risk factors published 2021 · free to read (page 1 of 2) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 32 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 Between Age at Diabetes Onset and Subsequent Risk of Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. JAMA 2021-04-01

Among 10 095 participants (67.3% men; aged 35-55 years in 1985-1988), a total of 1710 cases of diabetes and 639 cases of dementia were recorded over a median follow-up of 31.7 years. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 95 Evidence: moderate

Decades of research have revealed numerous risk factors for mental disorders beyond genetics, but their consistency and magnitude remain uncer-tain. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 176 Evidence: high

Prediabetes was positively associated with risk of all-cause mortality and the incidence of cardiovascular outcomes, CHD, stroke, chronic kidney disease, cancer and dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Of 6 952 440 vaccinated patients in the derivation cohort, 5 150 310 (74.1%) had two vaccine doses. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Ageing and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with declines in muscle function and cardiorespiratory fitness, resulting in an impaired capacity to perform daily activities and maintain independent functioning. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Traumatic Brain Injury and Risk of Neurodegenerative Disorder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Biological psychiatry 2021-06-02

Traumatic brain injury (TBI), particularly of greater severity (i.e., moderate to severe), has been identified as a risk factor for all-cause dementia and Parkinson's disease, with risk for specific dementia subtypes being more variable. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Patients with isolated rapid-eye-movement sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) are commonly regarded as being in the early stages of a progressive neurodegenerative disease involving α-synuclein pathology, such as Parkinson's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, or multiple system atrophy. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The rate of hospital admissions are variable between GP practices, with deprivation and being admitted from home as risk factors for admission for ACSC and non-ACSC admissions. 5 key findings →

Participants: 7,076 Evidence: low

The county clusters with the highest and lowest AD mortality rates were in Washington (WA) and New York (NY), respectively, with other notable high-mortality clusters on the border of Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama as well as in North Dakota and South Dakota. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Limited data suggest nursing home (NH) Alzheimer's special care units (ASCUs) may improve care and outcomes among residents with dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 13,207 Evidence: low

Annual Wellness Visit utilization was associated with an increased probability of new dementia diagnosis with effects varying by racial group (categorized as white, black, Hispanic/Latino, or Asian based on Social Security Administration data). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Associations of neighbourhood NO2 level, walkability, public open space and social fragmentation with dementia incidence and estimated future risk of dementia were statistically significant, indicating the potential to reduce the risk through changes in built and social environments. 3 key findings →

Participants: 25,511 Evidence: low

Key independent variables included the interaction of NH quality (measured by 5‐star rating) and race (i.e. black versus white), and interaction of NH quality, race, and state Medicaid dementia‐related add‐on policies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 874,526 Evidence: low

Chronic dialysis is associated with relatively high mortality and increased comorbidities that may render the patient unsuitable for renal transplantation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study investigated whether hospital-adopted health information technology (HIT) is associated with a reduction in the frequency of preventable emergency department (ED) visits for patients with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD). 3 key findings →

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