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 926–950 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors (page 38 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.

Among individuals with mild cognitive impairment, no vision impairment (VI) and corrected VI were associated with a lower risk of dementia than uncorrected VI, particularly among those aged < 75 years. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Sensory impairments (e.g., decreased function in hearing, vision, olfaction, and other senses) may be risk factors for or early markers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Cardiovascular risk factors contribute to the majority of dementia cases, with about 20% directly attributable to vascular cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Diabetes, elevated fasting glucose, central obesity, and heart age greater than chronological age were associated with rate of decline in processing speed during midlife. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

An interquartile range increase in 20-year PM2.5 was associated with a 20% higher risk of dementia (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5%, 37%) and an increased risk of mixed VaD/AD but not AD alone. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are present in urban children exposed to fine particulate matter (PM2.5), combustion and friction ultrafine PM (UFPM), and industrial nanoparticles (NPs). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

A Two-factor Model of Caregiving Appraisal and Psychological Well-Being

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Journal of Gerontology 1991-07-01

Groups of spouse (N = 285) and adult child (N = 244) caregivers of elderly parents suffering from Alzheimer's disease were interviewed regarding their caregiving behaviors, evaluations of caregiving, and general psychological well-being. 1 key finding →

Participants: 285 Evidence: low

Children with Down syndrome (DS) experience congenital and functional medical issues that predispose them to obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). 4 key findings →

Participants: 177 Evidence: low

Fatty acid differences, including docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6n-3) have been shown in the brains of Alzheimer's patients (AD) as compared with normal age-matched individuals. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Overlap between pathology of Alzheimer disease and vascular dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 1999-10-01

There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the neuropathology of Alzheimer disease (AD) extends beyond amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

A growing body of epidemiological evidence suggested that metabolic syndrome (MetS) and Mets components (impaired glucose tolerance, abdominal or central obesity, hypertension, hypertriglyceridemia, and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) may be important in the development of age-related cognitive decline (ARCD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), vascular dementia, and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Inflammation, depression and dementia: are they connected?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Neurochemical research 2007-08-20

Chronic inflammation is now considered to be central to the pathogenesis not only of such medical disorders as cardiovascular disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes and cancer but also of major depression. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with major impairments in insulin and insulin-like growth factor (IGF) gene expression and signaling in the brain. 5 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