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 526–550 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors(page 22 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2009-03-01
In recent years a rapidly increasing number of studies has focused on the relationship between dementia and metabolic disorders such as diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. 5 key findings →
As researchers across the globe have focused their attention on understanding SARS-CoV-2, the picture that is emerging is that of a virus that has serious effects on the vasculature in multiple organ systems including the cerebral vasculature. 5 key findings →
Clinical studies found that elevated cortisol was associated with poorer overall cognitive functioning, as well as with poorer episodic memory, executive functioning, language, spatial memory, processing speed, and social cognition; while in animals, glucocorticoid administration resulted in cognitive impairment and abnormal behavior. 5 key findings →
Increasing numbers of people are developing type 2 diabetes mellitus, but interventions to prevent and treat the classic microvascular and macrovascular complications have improved, so that people are living longer with the condition. 2 key findings →
Hypertension is a highly prevalent condition which has been established as a risk factor for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. 5 key findings →
AF ablation patients were less likely to have diabetes, but were more likely to have hypertension, HF, and significant valvular heart disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·1996-03-01
Apolipoprotein E type 4 allele (apoE epsilon4) is associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the late-onset familial form and in sporadic cases, but the age-associated risk in a randomly sampled elderly population is not established. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·JAMA·2011-03-15
Diagnosis frequency ranged across HRRs from 0.58 chronic conditions in Grand Junction, Colorado, to 1.23 in Miami, Florida (mean, 0.90 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.89-0.91]; median, 0.87 [interquartile range, 0.80-0.96]). 5 key findings →
Perceived greater access to greenspaces (estimate = 2.83, 95% CI = 1.40–4.26) and greater time in neighborhood greenspaces were associated with greater RI scores (estimate = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.24–3.35). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Brain Communications·2024-01-01
For amyloid positive individuals Aβ42/Aβ40, glial fibrillary acidic protein and p-tau181 were the top predictors of cognitive decline while Aβ42/Aβ40 was prominent for amyloid negative participants across all age groups. 5 key findings →
We examined factors associated with self-reported medication nonadherence in well-characterized community-based cohort of older adults. 5 key findings →
Chronic, low-grade inflammation, or inflammaging, is a crucial contributor to various age-related pathologies and natural processes in aging tissue, including the nervous system. 1 key finding →
Our study confirms and extends findings from other countries, demonstrating cross-sectional associations between moderate and poor self-rated vision and dementia in England in all participants aged 50 and older and longitudinally over an 11-year period in those aged 50 to 69. 3 key findings →
The associations of particulate matter (PM) pollution with the morbidity of overall and subtypes of mental disorders (MDs), as well as the corresponding morbidity burden, remain understudied, especially in developing countries. 5 key findings →
A discussion with theoretical and possible future research directions is provided and it is clear that the need is not only of longitudinal population studies and of better knowledge of epigenetics markers but, especially, of environmental policy interventions based on the green economy. 3 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.