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 626–650 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors (page 26 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.

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.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is highly prevalent but very frequently undiagnosed. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Vascular risk factors for Alzheimer disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) have been evaluated; however, few studies have compared risks by dementia subtypes and sex. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

Cognitive dysfunction in diabetes: how to implement emerging guidelines

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Diabetologia 2019-08-16

Cognitive dysfunction, including mild cognitive impairment and dementia, is increasingly recognised as an important comorbidity and complication of diabetes that affects an individual's well-being and diabetes management, and is associated with diabetes treatment-related complications. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In 2012, the national prevalence of antipsychotic drug use was 20.7% for elderly patients with dementia, with a national incidence of 3.9%. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 34,536 Evidence: low

The prevalence of cognitive impairment, MCI, and dementia among participants aged 60 years and older were 21.48% (95% CI, 19.90-23.10), 15.70% (95% CI, 14.30-17.10), and 5.77 (95% CI, 4.90-6.70), respectively. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,233 Evidence: low

= 0.041). Socioeconomic status and residential area are associated with long-term survival in patients with EOD. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,825 Evidence: moderate

ADI groups differed by sex, ethnoracial background, and MMSE scores. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 755 Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular risk factors and the allostatic interoceptive network in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Cardiovascular Research 2025-10-01

We recruited 1501 participants (304 with FTLD, 512 with AD, and 685 healthy controls) from the Multi-Partner Consortium to Expand Dementia Research in Latin America (ReDLat). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,501 Evidence: low

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with poorer cognitive performance and increased dementia risk. 2 key findings →

Participants: 9,943 Evidence: low

To investigate the response to an invitation to participate in a blended mobile Health intervention among adults living in deprived areas. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The Gut Microbiota and Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2017-01-01

The gut microbiota comprises a complex community of microorganism species that resides in our gastrointestinal ecosystem and whose alterations influence not only various gut disorders but also central nervous system disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Review of Safety and Efficacy of Sleep Medicines in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Clinical therapeutics 2016-10-15

Although non-BzRAs have improved safety profiles compared with benzodiazepines, their side effects include dementia, serious injury, and fractures, which should limit their use. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Although diagnosed by characteristic motor features, Parkinson's disease may be preceded, and is frequently accompanied by, a wide range of cognitive and neuropsychiatric features. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Aging and Alzheimer's disease: Comparison and associations from molecular to system level

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Aging cell 2018-07-02

Alzheimer's disease is the most prevalent cause of dementia, which is defined by the combined presence of amyloid and tau, but researchers are gradually moving away from the simple assumption of linear causality proposed by the original amyloid hypothesis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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