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 1,101–1,125 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors (page 45 of 87) · 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.

Higher socioeconomic status and increased frequency of physical activity were associated with a lower risk of both EOD and LOD. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

The number of people living with dementia is expected to rise to 153 million cases globally by 2050. 4 key findings →

Participants: 17,500 Evidence: low

The Hong Kong Grocery Shopping Dialog Task (HK-GSDT) is a short and easy-to-administer cognitive test developed for quickly screening neurocognitive disorders (NCDs). 2 key findings →

Participants: 464 Evidence: low

Mitochondrial dysfunction and molecular pathways of disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Experimental and molecular pathology 2007-01-18

Since the first mitochondrial dysfunction was described in the 1960s, the medicine has advanced in its understanding the role mitochondria play in health, disease, and aging. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neuroanatomy and pathology of sporadic Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Advances in anatomy, embryology, and cell biology 2009-01-01

The proteinopathy sporadic Parkinson's disease (sPD) is the second most frequent degenerative disorder of the human nervous system after Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A total of 47 adults aged 55+ years were recruited (50% male; 49% aged 60-69 years; 28% aged above 70 years), and 26 HCPs were involved, comprising dietitians (n = 8); geriatricians (n = 6); clinical therapists (n = 4); and nurses, pharmacists, catering managers and meal delivery service coordinators (n = 2 each). 5 key findings →

Participants: 47 Evidence: low

This narrative review examines how socioeconomic disparities accelerate health decline in older adults. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Rural patients with ADRD had 1.23 higher adjusted odds (P < .001) of going to the ED for a preventable visit compared to urban counterparts. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Does the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) influence dementia evaluation and diagnosis in Virginia? (S29.004)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Neurology 2023-04-25

14,292 patients were diagnosed with dementia over 2018–2021 (age 76.5+/−10.3 years; 53.1% female), with 96.3% linked to a census-tract-level ADI. 5 key findings →

Participants: 4,600 Evidence: low

BackgroundThere are limited studies quantifying the extent to which neighborhood deprivation affects mortality in individuals living with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (AD/ADRD).ObjectiveTo quantify to what extent neighborhood deprivation affects adverse outcomes in individuals living with AD/ADRD.MethodsWe identified individuals with AD/ADRD using a 15% random sample of national Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

Dementia risk is influenced by biological and lifestyle factors as well as broader socioeconomic conditions; however, the extent to which socioeconomic deprivation creates structural exposures that affect cognitive aging remains unclear. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Higher teacher‐student ratio was associated with greater gray matter volume (β = 6.25, 95% CI: 1.57, 10.92) but was not associated hippocampal volume (β = ‐0.01, 95% CI: ‐0.14, 0.11), ventricular volume (β = ‐0.04, 95% CI: ‐0.13, 0.04), or white matter hyperintensity (β = ‐0.02, 95% CI: ‐0.31, 0.26) (Table 2). 5 key findings →

Participants: 450 Evidence: moderate

Of 2 197 732 beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs in 2021, 881 736 (40.1%) were living in counties with aligned enrollment available and 251 305 (11.4%) enrolled. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neighborhood disadvantage is associated with education, health behaviors and mortality. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,479 Evidence: moderate

Inequities in dementia diagnosis and care: insights from a universal health care system

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Of the 193,834 community-dwelling people with a new diagnosis of dementia, around 20% belonged to each material deprivation category. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Linear regression models showed that higher community deprivation on the ADI was associated with greater WMH volume, independently of age, sex, years of education, smoking, and time between study visits (beta=0.11, p =.028). 4 key findings →

Participants: 388 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