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 1–22 of 22 studies in Risk factors with an author at University of California, Davis (US) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 22 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.

Blood pressure from mid- to late life and risk of incident dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2017-11-08

Elevated blood pressure during midlife, persistence of elevated blood pressure into late life, and, among nonhypertensives, a steep decline in blood pressure during mid- to late life were associated with an increased dementia risk in a community-based cohort. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,440 Evidence: moderate

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

Incentives are a cornerstone of attracting and retaining participants in clinical research studies.1 They serve as compensation for the time and effort individuals dedicate to the research process.1 However, previous randomized clinical trials found incentivizing was not associated with increased rates of clinical trial recruitment.2, 3 Furthermore, the rate participants redeem these incentives can vary considerably.1, 4 Although numerous methods have been used to increase trial recruitment, no studies have been conducted to explore factors associated with incentive redemption, regardless of clinical area. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 586 Evidence: high

Cognitive dysfunction in diabetes: how to implement emerging guidelines

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Diabetologia 2019-08-16

Cognitive dysfunction, including mild cognitive impairment and dementia, is increasingly recognised as an important comorbidity and complication of diabetes that affects an individual's well-being and diabetes management, and is associated with diabetes treatment-related complications. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with poorer cognitive performance and increased dementia risk. 2 key findings →

Participants: 9,943 Evidence: low

A significant ADI × dementia interaction was observed for global atrophy (p = .005) and several other outcomes. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate

Studies examining associations between greenspace and Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) outcomes are rapidly on the rise, yet no known literature reviews have summarized the racialized/ethnic group and geographic variation of those published studies. 1 key finding →

Participants: 12 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

We found that ∼25% of donors lived in high deprivation contexts, 52% had at least one incidence of CVD, and the cohort identified as .05). 3 key findings →

Participants: 7,187 Evidence: moderate

Higher teacher‐student ratio was associated with greater gray matter volume (β = 6.25, 95% CI: 1.57, 10.92) but was not associated hippocampal volume (β = ‐0.01, 95% CI: ‐0.14, 0.11), ventricular volume (β = ‐0.04, 95% CI: ‐0.13, 0.04), or white matter hyperintensity (β = ‐0.02, 95% CI: ‐0.31, 0.26) (Table 2). 5 key findings →

Participants: 450 Evidence: moderate

Social determinants of pharmacological dementia management: results from IDEAS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

We used multilevel logistic regression with a random site intercept to test whether the probability of change in management associated with social determinants, race/ADI interactions with amyloid‐positivity, comorbidities, and clinical setting, adjusting for demographics. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recruitment strategies are tailored in collaboration with community organizations to align with each language group's preferences, including adjusting the blood draw and interview sequence and hosting group blood draws where participants completed the procedure together, fostering a sense of community and reducing anxiety. 5 key findings →

Participants: 252 Evidence: low

Residence in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods may be associated with lower amyloid pathology in cognitively impaired individuals. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Preliminary analysis indicates significant differences in location, ethnoracial background, ADI, and TRAP exposure amongst UCD ADRC participants. 5 key findings →

Participants: 985 Evidence: moderate

The analyses of the community‐based U.S. POINTER indicate that AA/B individuals present differences in AD and related dementia biomarker values. nHW had higher fully adjusted cognitive scores. 5 key findings →

Participants: 644 Evidence: low

Social determinants of pharmacological dementia management: results from IDEAS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

We used multilevel logistic regression with a random site intercept to test whether the probability of change in management associated with social determinants, race/ADI interactions with amyloid‐positivity, comorbidities, and clinical setting, adjusting for demographics. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The exposome factors, such as diet, lifestyle, microbiome, chemical exposures and social exposome, shapes human health beyond genetic influences, but the mechanisms remain only partially understood. 1 key finding →

Participants: 449 Evidence: low

↑ 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