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 44 studies in Risk factors with an author at Johns Hopkins University (US) (page 1 of 2) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 44 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.

Study-level data from 14 studies, 2,310,330 individuals, and 102,174 dementia case patients were included. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,310,330 Evidence: high

Risk for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), the most prevalent dementia, is partially driven by genetics. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 94,437 Evidence: high

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration with neuronal inclusions of the TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (FTLD-TDP) is a fatal neurodegenerative disorder with only a limited number of risk loci identified. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 985 Evidence: high

Midlife and late-life risk factors contributed to 22.7% and 16.5% of total dementia cases, respectively. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 37,931 Evidence: high

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

Practice Guidelines for the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2000-08-01

The of establishing the diagnosis of pneumonia and cause is with the antibiotic studies for of community-acquired studies for of community-acquired The diagnosis of is based on a of clinical and laboratory The diagnosis of is and and as well as disease, congestive heart failure, with pneumonia and cases of and are of do not require and are the of antibiotic antimicrobial is usually for and a chest radiography is usually to establish the diagnosis of examination to or is for detecting pneumonia Chest radiography is considered is for the etiologic the and or conditions. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Studies were significantly heterogeneous in terms of country, outcomes assessed, and the timing of post-ED outcome assessments. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 7,940 Evidence: high

= 0.009). Significant differences in annualized changes in these FA and MD values were found depending on the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes and smoking. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,471 Evidence: moderate

Of 3037 participants, a weighted 57.8% (raw count, 1345) were younger than 75 years, 56.2% (raw count, 1777) were women, and most (84.9% [raw count, 2268]) were White. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,037 Evidence: moderate

Assessment and management of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2015-03-02

Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia include agitation, depression, apathy, repetitive questioning, psychosis, aggression, sleep problems, wandering, and a variety of inappropriate behaviors. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

A case-control study of Alzheimer's disease in Australia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurology 1990-11-01

We conducted a case-control study of clinically diagnosed Alzheimer's disease (AD) on 170 cases aged 52 to 96 years, and 170 controls matched for age, sex and, where possible, the general practice of origin. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

In this analytic cohort of 4130 participants, 486 (11.8%) experienced at least one hospitalization with delirium. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 4,130 Evidence: moderate

Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPSs) are hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD), causing substantial distress for both people with dementia and their caregivers, and contributing to early institutionalization. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We examined factors associated with self-reported medication nonadherence in well-characterized community-based cohort of older adults. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,164 Evidence: moderate

Vascular risk factors for Alzheimer disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) have been evaluated; however, few studies have compared risks by dementia subtypes and sex. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

Several reviews have summarized the prevalence of dementia in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

↑ 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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