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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 676–700 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors(page 28 of 87)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 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.
In contrast to informal clinical evaluations of oculomotor dysfunction frequency (previous studies: 38%, current clinical examination: 33%), detailed eyetracking investigations revealed eye movement abnormalities in 80% of patients with posterior cortical atrophy (compared to 17% typical Alzheimer's disease, 5% controls). 5 key findings →
Given the uncertain relationship between objective and subjective memory complaints (SMC), we conducted a study of cognitive function in older people with memory complaints in a large population-based elderly Spanish cohort (NEDICES). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Nature communications·2021-11-19
Air pollution may increase risk of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) in the U.S., but the extent of this relationship is unclear. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Circulation research·2025-08-14
About 30% to 40% of the general population experiences insomnia symptoms of difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, and another 10% to 15% of the general population experiences chronic insomnia disorder. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Journal of otology·2024-11-15
Patients with dementia had significantly worse hearing at almost all frequencies tested and significantly greater olfactory impairment than cognitively normal controls. 5 key findings →
The revised UCLA loneliness scale score was not significantly associated with age, years of education, mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score, gender, living status, visual impairment, hearing impairment, and marital status. 5 key findings →
The results showed that log-transformed serum Aβ42 level was positively correlated with BMI (R = 0.29; p < 0.001), log-transformed triglyceride (R = 0.14; p < 0.001), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (R = 0.12; p < 0.001) and negatively correlated with high-density lipoprotein (HDL-c) (R = -0.18; p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
After adjusting for age, race, and gender, persons with Alzheimer's disease and dementia associated with medical conditions were less likely to be diagnosed with hypertension, diabetes, congestive heart failure, and atrial fibrillation than were controls. 5 key findings →
Highly educated at-risk subjects had better cognition and higher grey matter volume at baseline; moreover, higher educational attainment was associated with slower loss of grey matter over time in mutation carriers. 2 key findings →
To assess the validity of Yaakov Stern's theory, which postulates that the first cognitive deficits of Alzheimer disease are delayed in patients with high cognitive reserve, compared to those with low cognitive reserve, but this is subsequently associated with faster cognitive decline when cerebral lesions have reached a certain degree of severity. 3 key findings →
The Cognitive Reserve hypothesis suggests that there are individual differences in the ability to cope with the pathologic changes in Alzheimer's Disease. 3 key findings →
Previous genome-wide association studies have identified numerous genetic variants and revealed the genetic architecture of educational attainment, another marker of cognitive reserve. 5 key findings →
To appraise the validity of the Yaakov Stern's theory, which postulates that the first cognitive deficits of Alzheimer's disease are delayed in patients with high cognitive reserve, compared to those with low cognitive reserve, but is subsequently associated with faster cognitive decline when cerebral lesions have reached some degree of severity. 3 key findings →
Compared with LLD patients without OI impairment and normal controls, LLD patients with OI impairment exhibited increased FC between the left orbital frontal cortex (OFC) and left calcarine gyrus, between the left OFC and right lingual gyrus, between the right OFC and right rectus gyrus, and decreased FC between the right piriform cortex and right superior parietal lobule. 5 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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.