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 26–50 of 181 studies in Risk factors published 2026 (page 2 of 8) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 181 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.

MODERN MEDICINE VERSUS LIFESTYLE MEDICINE Conventional biomedicine excels in acute care, diagnostics, therapeutics and emergencies. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

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

Across both cohorts, individuals with lower SES generally exhibited higher BERs (worse performance) than high SES groups, confirming the presence of bias. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,041 Evidence: moderate

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

Among individuals with mild cognitive impairment, no vision impairment (VI) and corrected VI were associated with a lower risk of dementia than uncorrected VI, particularly among those aged < 75 years. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Sensory impairments (e.g., decreased function in hearing, vision, olfaction, and other senses) may be risk factors for or early markers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Cardiovascular risk factors contribute to the majority of dementia cases, with about 20% directly attributable to vascular cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Central-northern rural communities exhibited the most pronounced high-high spatial clustering of cognitive impairment (Global Moran's I = 0.17, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18,963 Evidence: low

Caregiving difficulties showed excellent reliability (α = 0.928) and yielded three components explaining 73.19% of variance. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,254 Evidence: low

BackgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias are leading causes of death worldwide. 4 key findings →

Participants: 6,909 Evidence: moderate

The weighted combined PAF for all 14 risk factors was 38.9%, indicating that nearly 4 in 10 dementia cases in Japan might be preventable. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study aimed to test the hypothesis that multi-level factors across the five Health Ecological Model (HEM) layers are independently associated with SCD among hypertensive patients in rural China, and to identify specific associated factors within each layer. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Non-White race and adverse social and socioeconomic factors-lower education, unemployment, unmarried status, and greater neighborhood disadvantage-were each associated with poorer cognitive performance (p < 0.05). 4 key findings →

Participants: 274 Evidence: low

This narrative review examines how socioeconomic disparities accelerate health decline in older adults. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Dementia risk is influenced by biological and lifestyle factors as well as broader socioeconomic conditions; however, the extent to which socioeconomic deprivation creates structural exposures that affect cognitive aging remains unclear. 4 key findings →

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

Loneliness moderated the relationship between national ADI scores and short-term visuospatial memory. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 136 Evidence: low

Older adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD) frequently present to emergency departments (EDs) with multiple coexisting conditions. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 125,461 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
  • 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 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