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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 351–375 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors (page 15 of 87) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 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.

Cohort Profile: The National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. International Journal of Epidemiology 2019-05-19

For self-care and mobility activities, respondents are asked whether in the past month they used specific assistive devices (e.g. grab bar, walker) while doing a particular activity, whether they had difficulty doing the activity by themselves when using named devices, frequencies compared with a year ago and whether they received help. 5 key findings →

Participants: 8,038 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The course of geriatric depression with "reversible dementia": a controlled study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. American Journal of Psychiatry 1993-11-01

Irreversible dementia developed significantly more frequently in the depressed group with reversible dementia (43%) than in the group with depression alone (12%). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 23 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

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

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

Metabolic syndrome and risk for incident Alzheimer's disease or vascular dementia: the Three-City Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Diabetes care 2008-10-22

The observed relation between high triglycerides, diabetes, and vascular dementia emphasizes the need for detection and treatment of vascular risk factors in older individuals in order to prevent the likelihood of clinical dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Medicare's Annual Wellness Visit and diagnoses of dementias and cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring 2022-01-01

Beneficiaries included 2,713,573 White, 251,958 Black, 196,845 Hispanic, 95,719 Asian, 11,727 American Indian/Alaska Native, and 63,795 of other race/ethnicity. 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 3,333,617 Evidence: moderate

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

Research on Multiple Chronic Conditions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Medical Care 2014-02-24

This issue of Medical Care includes a theoretical framework for conducting research on MCC, a review of existing MCC research methods and methodological gaps to be addressed, and the results of several research studies addressing MCC. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 110,000 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Preclinical evidence of Alzheimer's disease in persons homozygous for the epsilon 4 allele for apolipoprotein E

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 1996-03-01

In late middle age, cognitively normal subjects who are homozygous for the epsilon 4 allele for apolipoprotein E have reduced glucose metabolism in the same regions of the brain as in patients with probable Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy maps to chromosome 19q12

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Nature genetics 1993-03-01

Cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) has been recently reported as a cause of stroke. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Clinicopathologic correlations in 172 cases of rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder with or without a coexisting neurologic disorder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Sleep medicine 2013-03-07

In this large series of PSG-confirmed and probable RBD cases that underwent autopsy, the strong association of RBD with the synucleinopathies was further substantiated and a wider spectrum of disorders which can underlie RBD now are more apparent. 2 key findings →

Participants: 147 Evidence: low

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

Simvastatin is associated with a reduced incidence of dementia and Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. BMC medicine 2007-07-19

We observed that simvastatin is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of dementia in subjects > or =65 years, using any of three models. 5 key findings →

Participants: 700,000 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
  • 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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