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 51–75 of 181 studies in Risk factors published 2026 (page 3 of 8) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

Understanding regional and racial variation in the risk of hospitalization with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD)-and how it differs from other conditions-is required to inform effective practice and policy. 2 key findings →

Participants: 143 Evidence: low

Concurrent diarrhea and wasting (DW) among children aged 6–24 months represents a critical public health threat in East Africa, exacerbating infection susceptibility, stunting, cognitive impairment, and mortality. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,402 Evidence: low

Residence in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods may be associated with lower amyloid pathology in cognitively impaired individuals. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Agricultural pesticide use represents one of the most geographically patterned environmental systems, yet most prior research has focused largely on individual compounds rather than correlated exposure regimes. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

T2D was associated with a higher risk and earlier onset of dementia, especially in cases with T2D diagnosed at ages 30-54 years. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Counties had a mean prevalence of 65.3 per 1,000 (SD 15.5) for highly likely ADRD and 123.5 per 1,000 (SD 27.0) for all determinations. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,108 Evidence: low

Socioeconomic disadvantage (SED) has been associated with poorer brain health, yet its underlying pathology remains incompletely understood. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,110 Evidence: low

Per-Capita Food Availability and Global Dementia Burden Across Multiple Exposure Windows

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Nutrients 2026-08-18

Higher per-capita food availability was positively associated with dementia outcomes in minimally adjusted models, particularly for the 2005 exposure window, although these associations were substantially attenuated after full covariate adjustment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Compared to those in rural areas, participants who resided in urban areas during young adulthood had lower late midlife ADI (β = -0.85, p < .05), and better executive function (β = 0.19), processing speed (β = 0.24), and verbal fluency (β = 0.30) (ps < .05) in older adulthood. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Lithium is a naturally occurring trace element with established neuroprotective and psychotropic properties at pharmacologic doses. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

MDD prevalence was consistently higher among women than men across all regions and age groups, ranging from 4.42%-5.11% in women versus 2.87%-3.41% in men. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In 2023, US life expectancy reached 78.5 years and healthy life expectancy 64.5 years, both still below prepandemic 2019 levels, with a persistent 13-14-year gap between life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Among 15,346 White, 829 Latino, 637 Black/African American, and 321 Asian individuals, 51% were female, mean age was 75.7 years, 535 (3.8%) resided in ADI 91 to 100 decile, and 61.6% were amyloid PET positive. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The prevalence of hypertension showed statistically significant spatial clustering (global Moran’s I=0.442, p&lt;.001), with high-high clusters concentrated in rural eup-myeon areas and low-low clusters in urban dong areas. 4 key findings →

Participants: 62,411 Evidence: low

Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) disproportionately impact older Black American adults, with diet-related cardiometabolic conditions contributing to increased risk. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This reduction is likely a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have decreased overall diagnostic opportunities. 3 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 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.

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

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed