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 651–675 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors (page 27 of 87) · 28,580 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.

Insulin Resistance and Alzheimer's Disease: Bioenergetic Linkages

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2017-10-31

Metabolic dysfunction is a well-established feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD), evidenced by brain glucose hypometabolism that can be observed potentially decades prior to the development of AD symptoms. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Participants in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (n = 156) were younger, more often female, and less often college-educated or white than those in less disadvantaged neighborhoods (n = 1963). 3 key findings →

Participants: 156 Evidence: low

Hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, and diabetes were overrepresented in AA participants, but were not associated with cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Participants: 261 Evidence: low

The mean (SD) age of the 4,631 participants was 67.6 (4.89) years, and 2579 (55.7%) were women. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,943 Evidence: low

Exposure to high neighborhood‐level socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with negative health outcomes. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 645 Evidence: moderate

SNF discharges decreased while home and HHA discharges increased during the pandemic. 5 key findings →

Participants: 830,656 Evidence: moderate

We found that both state of birth and state of residence account for a modest portion of ADRD mortality variation. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Biomarker-guided clustering of Alzheimer's disease clinical syndromes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurobiology of Aging 2019-09-10

Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuropathology is extremely heterogeneous, and the evolution from preclinical to mild cognitive impairment until dementia is driven by interacting genetic/biological mechanisms not fully captured by current clinical/research criteria. 2 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

The characteristics of the cohort revealed significant groupwise differences in age, education, sex, and cognitive diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Neighborhood disadvantage was associated with worse cognitive performance on memory, executive function, processing speed, and preclinical Alzheimer's tests on both datasets. 5 key findings →

Participants: 524 Evidence: moderate

The sample (n = 26,728) was equally distributed across gender (55.1% women) and education (50.8% completed HS/GED diploma), and 30% came from under-represented racial/ethnic groups. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 26,728 Evidence: low

Typical normative models appear appropriate for remote self‐administered measures and are sensitive to cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Participants: 167 Evidence: low

A significant ADI × dementia interaction was observed for global atrophy (p = .005) and several other outcomes. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate

Most studies suggest depression may contribute to neurodegeneration, but clinical, neuroimaging, and longitudinal evidence also support its role as a prodrome or consequence, indicating a bidirectional relationship. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In preclinical studies, partial or complete sleep deprivation produced inflammation, oxidative stress, as well as increased tau hyperphosphorylation and amyloid-β burden. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

When risk factors were evaluated independently, we found less early-life education, mid-life hearing loss and diabetes, and late-life social isolation and visual loss associated with increased odds for dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,526 Evidence: moderate

Education, smoking, diabetes, depression, physical activity and social isolation were associated with a 1.13-1.55 times increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Genome-wide association studies have led to numerous genetic loci associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,247 Evidence: low

Visual impairment and cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of general internal medicine 1991-03-01

Visual impairment is associated with both an increased risk and an increased clinical severity of Alzheimer's disease, but the increased risk may not be consistent with a progressive dose-response relationship. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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