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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,226–1,250 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors(page 50 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)
From OpenAlex; 13,658 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.
Women with chronic HIV infection (WWH) living in the United States, experience a disproportionately high rate of obesity compared to uninfected populations. 2 key findings →
Diabetes is among the most prevalent diseases of the modern world and is strongly linked to an increased risk of numerous neurodegenerative disorders, although the exact pathophysiological mechanisms are not clear yet. 2 key findings →
Associations were found between times spent in (i) a "weakly connected" state and lower self-reported engagement in early- and mid-life cognitive activity and higher LDL cholesterol; (ii) a "SN-negatively connected" state and higher blood pressure, higher depression score, and lower body mass index (BMI); (iii) a "strongly connected" state and higher self-reported engagement in early-life cognitive activity, Preclinical Alzheimer's cognitive composite-5 score, and BMI; and (iv) a "DMN-negatively connected" state and higher self-reported engagement in early- and mid-life stimulating activities and lower LDL cholesterol and blood pressure. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Nutrients·2021-06-30
Metabolic syndrome (MS) is a set of cardio-metabolic risk factors that includes central obesity, hyperglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemias. 5 key findings →
The fructose survival hypothesis proposes that obesity and metabolic disorders may have developed from over-stimulation of an evolutionary-based biologic response (survival switch) that aims to protect animals in advance of crisis. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a priority health problem with a high cost to society and a large consumption of medical and social resources. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Journal of obesity·2021-07-16
Obesity is a global health problem with a broad set of comorbidities, such as malnutrition, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, systemic hypertension, heart failure, and kidney failure. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the main type of dementia and is a disease with a profound socioeconomic burden due to the lack of effective treatment. 3 key findings →
Evidence from epidemiological studies on the general population suggests that midlife cardiovascular disease (CVD) and/or metabolic syndrome (MetS) are associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment and dementia later in life. 4 key findings →
Cognitive impairment has become an important aspect affecting the health and quality of life of middle-aged and elderly people, which is defined as the difficulty of thought processing and leads to memory loss, difficulties making decisions, the inability to concentrate, and difficulties learning. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2022-12-19
The study of factors, across species, that allow some individuals to age more successfully than others has important implications for individual wellbeing as well as health education, policy and intervention. 1 key finding →
Cognitive reserve is characterized by a dissociation between cognitive level and brain structure, thereby reducing the impact of deteriorating brain structure on cognitive function. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2021-10-14
This study aimed to explore the moderating effects of the frequently used cognitive reserve (CR) proxies [i.e., education, premorbid intelligence quotient (pIQ), occupational complexity (OC), and lifetime cognitive activity (LCA)] on the relationships between various in vivo Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathologies and cognition. 2 key findings →
In the absence of effective treatments for dementia, maintaining cognitive health in old age is one of the major challenges facing aging societies. 3 key findings →
The loss of olfactory stimulation correlates well with at least 68 widely differing neurological disorders, including depression, and we raise the possibility that this relationship may be causal. 4 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 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.