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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 426–450 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors(page 18 of 87)· 28,180 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)
From OpenAlex; 13,658 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.
Vascular cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) is commonly caused by vascular injuries in cerebral large and small vessels and is a key driver of age-related cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
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 →
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 →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-04-22
= 0.991). Optimal sleep modified both cognitive performance and dementia risk in individuals with focal epilepsy compared with stroke patients and healthy controls. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Sleep·2003-11-01
Based on actigraphy as an objective measure of sleep time, melatonin is not an effective soporific agent in people with Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an established risk factor for the early development of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, and the post-traumatic brain frequently exhibits neurofibrillary tangles comprised of aggregates of the protein tau. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2014-10-01
These findings suggest that the sleep-wake cycle plays a crucial part in brain ageing, pointing to a potential avenue for improvement of cognitive outcomes in people at risk of cognitive decline and dementia. 1 key finding →
We describe demographic, clinical, laboratory and aetiological findings in 93 consecutive patients with rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behaviour disorder (RBD), which consists of excessive motor activity during dreaming in association with loss of skeletal muscle atonia of REM sleep. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology·1998-01-01
Patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) have elevations of fasting plasma insulin that are hypothesized to be associated with disrupted brain insulin metabolism. 2 key findings →
A re-analysis of the data from 11 case-control studies was performed to investigate the association between head trauma and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
We believe this information important when counseling elderly patients regarding the risks of mortality and PJI after TKA and risk-adjusting publicly reported TKA patient outcomes. 2 key findings →
Exposure to ACH medications is independently and specifically associated with a subsequent increase in delirium symptom severity in elderly medical inpatients with diagnosed delirium. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1989-04-01
We have prospectively followed over a 5-year period 434 volunteers who were at intake ambulatory, functional, presumably nondemented, and between 75 and 85 years of age. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2010-09-16
We found reduced ¹²³I-FP-CIT binding in the striatum (p=0·045) in 17 (40%) of 43 participants compared with 18 controls, and substantia nigra hyperechogenicity in 14 (36%) of 39 participants with IRBD, compared with 16 (11%) of 149 controls (p=0·0002). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2021-08-01
Patients with isolated rapid-eye-movement sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) are commonly regarded as being in the early stages of a progressive neurodegenerative disease involving α-synuclein pathology, such as Parkinson's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, or multiple system atrophy. 1 key finding →
Increasing neighborhood disadvantage was associated with increased risk of EHR-documented dementia diagnosis or dementia-related death (most vs. least disadvantaged ADI quintile HR = 1.76, 95% confidence interval = 1.69-1.84) after adjusting for age and sex. 4 key findings →
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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.