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 39 studies in Risk factors with an author at Washington University in St. Louis (US) (page 1 of 2) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 39 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.

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

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

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

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

After adjusting for demographics, apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 status, cognition, and comorbidities, the highest tertile of REM latency was associated with higher Aβ burden (β = 0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03 to 0.13, p = 0.002), elevated p-tau181 (β = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.13, p = 0.002), and reduced BDNF levels (β = -0.47, 95% CI: -0.68 to -0.13, p = 0.013), compared to the lowest tertile. 5 key findings →

Participants: 128 Evidence: low

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

Of 57 participants (mean age ± SD = 66.6 ± 7.2 years; female = 52.6%), 38.6% (n = 22) had MCI-level functional impairment and 17.5% (n = 10) had dementia-level functional impairment. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate

Hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, and diabetes were overrepresented in AA participants, but were not associated with cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Participants: 261 Evidence: low

Typical normative models appear appropriate for remote self‐administered measures and are sensitive to cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Participants: 167 Evidence: low

Neocortical neurofibrillary tangle densities were substantially correlated with dementia severity, and to a greater degree than was true for senile plaque densities. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

CBSD revealed a framework for how economic hardship, especially low income and unemployment, reduces access to physical and mental healthcare, driving dementia risk. 5 key findings →

Participants: 234 Evidence: low

Associations among cognitive performance, VCAM-1, and GFAP in black adults: The ARCHES study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neurobiology of Aging 2026-07-07

Astrocytic injury and endothelial activation are interconnected processes within the neurovascular system that may contribute to variability in cognitive performance among cognitively unimpaired adults. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 313 Evidence: low

Among 5757 participants (21.7% Black, 20.3% Latinx, 58.1% AORE), we found lower odds of amyloid positivity in Black (odds ratio [OR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.83) and Latinx (OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.91) compared to AORE. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,757 Evidence: moderate

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

The nationwide combined weighted PAF for the eight CMDs was 37% overall, with hypertension (9.6%), ischemic heart disease (6.7%), and chronic heart failure (5.7%) associated with the greatest attributable fractions of dementia cases. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study reveals significant differences in driving patterns between cognitively normal older adults and those with cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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
  • 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