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 124 studies in Risk factors of type cross-sectional study (page 1 of 5) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 124 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.

Sleep-disordered breathing, hypoxia, and risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia in older women

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA 2011-08-01

Among older women, those with sleep-disordered breathing compared with those without sleep-disordered breathing had an increased risk of developing cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 60 Evidence: low

Long-term exposure to PM 2.5 contributed to the development of cognitive decline, which may be partly explained by brain amyloid accumulation indicative of increased AD risk. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 31,573 Evidence: moderate

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

Network models of late life depression symptoms and cognitive impairments across time

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Aging & mental health 2025-02-02

Across 3544 participants, ≥65 years of age, with no diagnosed dementia-related disorders, the depression symptom everything was an effort showed high expected influence across all time points. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,544 Evidence: moderate

Evidence strongly supports the important role of insulin resistance in cognitive decline and dementia and suggests that insulin sensitizers may protect against cognitive decline in diabetic and pre-diabetic individuals. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 204 Evidence: moderate

Multivariable linear regressions showed an association of metabolic syndrome with lower performance in attention (β=1.62 seconds, 95% CI=0.20, 3.04) and memory (β=-0.62 words, 95% CI=-1.19, -0.05) that could be driven by associations with elevated fasting glucose and abdominal obesity. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,077 Evidence: moderate

In weighted models, greater loneliness was associated with microinfarcts, lower episodic and working memory in the absence of AD pathology, lower working memory in the absence of infarcts, a stronger association of infarcts with lower episodic memory, and a stronger association of microinfarcts with lower working and semantic memory. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 680 Evidence: low

Homocysteine, silent brain infarcts, and white matter lesions: The Rotterdam Scan Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2002-03-01

Silent brain infarcts and white matter lesions are frequently seen on magnetic resonance imaging in healthy elderly people and both are associated with an increased risk of stroke and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,077 Evidence: low

Alcohol consumption and sleep quality: a community-based study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Public health nutrition 2020-11-13

We observed a dose-response association between higher alcohol consumption in 2006 and worse sleep quality in 2012 (Ptrend < 0·001), after adjusting for age, sex, socio-economic status, smoking status, physical activity, obesity, plasma lipid profiles, diabetes and hypertension. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 905 Evidence: moderate

Caregivers showed a greater discrepancy in sleep duration than did noncaregivers (-0.46 hour vs 0.22 hour, respectively; P = .003). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 122 Evidence: low

The mean age was 58.4 years (SD = 6.2). A 20-dB (equivalent to a one-category worsening) increase in HL was associated with a -1.53 (95% CI, -2.11, -0.94) raw score point difference in the DSST, adjusting for demographics, hearing aid use, and cardiovascular disease. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,277 Evidence: moderate

Greater educational attainment and mental activity were associated with higher composite SPPB scores and those of its three subtests (p < 0.05). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,714 Evidence: low

Prevalence of Unrecognized Cognitive Impairment in Federally Qualified Health Centers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-10-22

A total of 844 eligible individuals were consecutively approached, 294 consented to participate, and 204 completed the study (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [5.1] years; 127 women [62.3%]). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 127 Evidence: low

Association Between Socioeconomic Factors, Race, and Use of a Specialty Memory Clinic

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2023-08-02

4,824 patients seen at the memory clinic between 2008-2018 were included in this study (mean age 72.7 [standard deviation 11.0] years, 2,712 [56%] female, 543 [11%] Black). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,824 Evidence: low

Among 1614 older adults (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [8.7] years; 980 women [60.7%]), 853 were Mexican American (mean [SD] age, 63.9 [7.9] years; 566 women [66.4%]), and 761 were non-Hispanic White (mean [SD] age, 69.1 [8.7] years; 414 women [54.4%]). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 280 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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. 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 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
  • Randomised / 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
  • Multi-centre 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 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.

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

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed