alzhub.org
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.

Research

31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 36 studies in Risk factors published 2022 · free to read (page 1 of 2) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 36 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.

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,851 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

ApoE Cascade Hypothesis in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neuron 2022-03-16

The ε4 allele of the apolipoprotein E gene (APOE4) is a strong genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and several other neurodegenerative conditions, including Lewy body dementia (LBD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Medicare's Annual Wellness Visit and diagnoses of dementias and cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring 2022-01-01

Beneficiaries included 2,713,573 White, 251,958 Black, 196,845 Hispanic, 95,719 Asian, 11,727 American Indian/Alaska Native, and 63,795 of other race/ethnicity. 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 3,333,617 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2022-06-06

In cognitively unimpaired (CU) adults at baseline, the risk for progression to dementia increased for every decile increase in the ADI state ranking (hazard ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval (1.01-1.11), P = .01). 5 key findings →

Participants: 4,699 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Neighborhood disadvantage and dementia incidence in a cohort of Asian American and non‐Latino White older adults in Northern California

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2022-04-06

Among non-Latino Whites, ADI was associated with dementia incidence (most vs. least disadvantaged ADI quintile HR = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.15). 4 key findings →

Participants: 18,103 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Relational Design for Dementia and Job Significance (ReDeSign): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of an online dementia training for retail workers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications 2022-01-20

ReDeSign provides dementia training to convenience store workers and contributes to developing an inclusive community for people with dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 62 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Effects of Socioeconomic Status and Residence Areas on Long-Term Survival in Patients With Early-Onset Dementia: The Korean National Health Insurance Service Database Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Journal of Korean Medical Science 2022-01-01

= 0.041). Socioeconomic status and residential area are associated with long-term survival in patients with EOD. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,825 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Applied nutritional investigation spatial variation and determinants of stunting among children aged less than 5 y in Ethiopia: A spatial and multilevel analysis of Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey 2019

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Nutrition 2022-07-01

The national prevalence of stunting was 36.81% (95% CI, 35.48%-38.15%), with significant spatial variations across Ethiopia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,753 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Quality and safety indicators for home care recipients in Australia: development and cross-sectional analyses

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. BMJ Open 2022-08-01

A comprehensive outcome monitoring system to monitor the quality and safety of care and variation for HCP recipients was developed. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 68 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Area Deprivation Index as a Surrogate of Resilience in Aging and Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Frontiers in Psychology 2022-06-29

Area deprivation index (ADI), a tool used to capture the multidimensional neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage across populations, is highly relevant to the field of aging and Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Sex and Gender Differences in Environmental Influences on Dementia Incidence in Germany, 2014–2019: An Observational Cohort Study Based on Health Claims Data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease 2022-03-08

After adjusting for multi-morbidity and relocation-related selection bias, we saw that people living in regions with the highest tertile of income (HR = 0.87, p < 0.001), and who had the highest tertile of remaining life expectancy at age 60 (HR = 0.93, p = 0.012) had lower dementia risks. 5 key findings →

Participants: 250,000 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Geospatial analysis of patients’ social determinants of health for health systems science and disparity research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. International Anesthesiology Clinics 2022-12-08

The cross-disciplinary expertise, required for GA, common in the days before medical specialization and enabled by the relative paucity of development in various fields compared with today, can be reborn with the advent of Electronic Health Records (EHR) systems that make the tools of medical geography accessible to a wide variety of health care researchers and clinical subspecialties. 4 key findings →

Participants: 127 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Area Deprivation Index and Gut-Brain Axis in Cirrhosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology 2022-05-10

A total of 321 people with cirrhosis (60 years, 78% men, 75% non-Hispanic White, 24% non-Hispanic African American, 4% Hispanic) were included. 45% had prior HE and 56% MHE. 5 key findings →

Participants: 321 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Evaluation of four gamma-based methods for calculating confidence intervals for age-adjusted mortality rates when data are sparse

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Population Health Metrics 2022-05-07

The three modifications had comparable performance when the number of deaths was large relative to the denominator and the age distribution was as in the standard population. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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