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

31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 26–44 of 44 studies in Risk factors with an author at Johns Hopkins University (US) (page 2 of 2) · 31,780 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.

Other subjects

Authors

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

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 17,251 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.

The Epidemiology of Social Isolation and Loneliness Among Family and Unpaid Caregivers of Older Adults: Findings From the National Study of Caregiving

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series B 2025-05-24

About 12% of caregivers (2.8 million) were socially isolated and 27% (6.3 million) were lonely. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,174 Evidence: low

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

Neighborhood Racial and Ethnic Segregation and the Risk of Dementia in Older Adults Living with Kidney Failure

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2024-04-26

Key Points Regardless of race and ethnicity, older adults with kidney failure residing in or receiving care at dialysis facilities located in high-segregation neighborhoods were at a 1.63-fold and 1.53-fold higher risk of dementia diagnosis, respectively. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Dementia in a resource‐constrained sub‐Saharan African setting: A comprehensive retrospective analysis of prevalence, risk factors, and management at the only neuropsychiatric facility in Northeastern Nigeria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-03-01

Of the 1216 cases reported, Alzheimer's disease (60.5%) was the most common subtype, followed by vascular dementia (24.5%). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Neighborhood Disadvantage and Dementia Risk Among Older Patients With Kidney Failure: Differences by Race/Ethnicity and Urbanicity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Kidney Medicine 2026-07-20

Older patients with kidney failure residing in high-disadvantage neighborhoods, particularly Black patients and those in suburban, rural, or small-town areas, had a higher risk of ADRD compared with those in low-disadvantage neighborhoods. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Trends in Assisted Living and Memory Care Supply From 2019 to 2023

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2025-09-30

Describe geographic variation from 2019 to 2023 in assisted living (AL) and memory care supply, and its correlation with county-level characteristics. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,000 Evidence: low

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

“The place where danger waits”: Ten years of the 1994 Crime Bill incarceration on cognitive function in older adults racialized as Black

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2023-12-01

Ten‐year Black‐White disparities in prison population are associated with cognitive decline among people racialized as Black starting one year later. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,300 Evidence: low

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

“Taxes, death, and trouble”: Role of structural socioeconomic racism on cognitive function for persons racialized as Black

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2023-12-01

Participants racialized as Black who lived in places with higher levels of area‐level structural socioeconomic racism experienced lower levels of cognition at baseline and at varying time points in the six‐year period—compared to those in places with lower structural socioeconomic racism. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,172 Evidence: low

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

Exploring Neighborhood Level Socioeconomic Status and Volumetric MRI Results in Patients with Memory Impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

Contrary to expectations, high versus low ADI groups only showed a difference in hippocampal volume, but in the reverse direction. 4 key findings →

Participants: 310 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. 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
  • 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.

1,052 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