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

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 476–500 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors (page 20 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)

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; 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.

Evaluating Cognitive Reserve Through the Prism of Preclinical Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. The Psychiatric clinics of North America 2017-12-07

The concept of cognitive reserve (CR) was proposed to account for the discrepancy between levels of brain pathologic features or damage and clinical and cognitive function. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Cognitive Reserve from the Perspective of Preclinical Alzheimer Disease: 2020 Update

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Clinics in geriatric medicine 2019-11-15

The concept of cognitive reserve (CR) was proposed to account for the discrepancy between levels of brain pathologic process or damage and clinical and cognitive function. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Improving the resistance and resilience framework for aging and dementia studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2020-04-14

While the field advances towards consensus definitions of existing concepts, the resistance vs resilience terminology may provide clarity in the communication of results in aging and dementia studies as well as provide a framework for the development of both hypotheses and study designs. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Associations between Brain Reserve Proxies and Clinical Progression in Alzheimer's Disease Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. International journal of environmental research and public health 2021-11-19

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether brain and cognitive reserves were associated with the clinical progression of AD dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 120 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The role of cognitive and brain reserve in late-life depressive events: The Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Journal of affective disorders 2022-09-30

Higher cognitive (HR: 0.91/SD, 95%CI: 0.84; 1.00) and brain reserve (HR: 0.88/SD, 95%CI: 0.77; 1.00) were associated with a lower risk of a depressive event after adjustment for baseline depressive symptoms. 5 key findings →

Participants: 105 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Association between air pollution and CSF sTREM2 in cognitively normal older adults: The CABLE study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Annals of clinical and translational neurology 2022-10-31

Ambient 2-year averaged exposure of PM2.5 was associated with changes of neuroinflammatory markers, that is, CSF sTREM2 (β = -0.116, p = 0.0002). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,131 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Inflammageing: chronic inflammation in ageing, cardiovascular disease, and frailty

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Nature reviews. Cardiology 2018-09-01

Most older individuals develop inflammageing, a condition characterized by elevated levels of blood inflammatory markers that carries high susceptibility to chronic morbidity, disability, frailty, and premature death. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Alpha-synuclein is part of a diverse and highly conserved interaction network that includes PARK9 and manganese toxicity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Nature genetics 2009-02-01

Parkinson's disease (PD), dementia with Lewy bodies and multiple system atrophy, collectively referred to as synucleinopathies, are associated with a diverse group of genetic and environmental susceptibilities. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms of Alzheimer's disease: New treatment paradigms

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2017-08-05

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

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

Validation of the Mayo Sleep Questionnaire to screen for REM sleep behavior disorder in an aging and dementia cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Sleep medicine 2011-02-23

These data suggest that among aged subjects with cognitive impairment and/or parkinsonism, the MSQ has adequate SN and SP for the diagnosis of RBD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate

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

Relational Design for Dementia and Job Significance (ReDeSign): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of an online dementia training for retail workers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications 2022-01-20

ReDeSign provides dementia training to convenience store workers and contributes to developing an inclusive community for people with dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 62 Evidence: high

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

Potential Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Air Pollution on Dementia: A Longitudinal Analysis in American Indians Aged 55 Years and Older

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2024-01-24

The average PM2.5 levels in the IHS counties were lower than those in all US counties, while the mean O3 levels in the IHS counties were higher than the US counties. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 26,871 Evidence: moderate

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

Factors associated with incentive redemption among participants in a multicenter prospective syncope clinical study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Academic Emergency Medicine 2024-06-28

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

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 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed