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 1,601–1,625 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors(page 65 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.
The World Health Organization (WHO) burden of disease study identified dementia and hearing problems as leading causes of loss of quality of life in the industrial world. 5 key findings →
Considerable attention has focused on the prevention of dementia in terms of non-genetic risk factors, including midlife obesity, especially visceral obesity associated with hyperglycemia, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Cardiorenal medicine·2013-11-29
The prevalence of the cardiorenal metabolic syndrome (CRS) is increasing in parallel with obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer's disease, and other forms of dementia. 2 key findings →
Hypertension is a risk factor for stroke, ischemic white matter lesions, silent infarcts, general atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Vaccines·2014-11-26
Vaccines are commonly used as a preventive medicine for infectious diseases worldwide; however, the trial for an amyloid beta vaccine against Alzheimer's disease will open a new concept in vaccination. 5 key findings →
There is a cluster of risk factors for Type 2 diabetes and vascular disease that include high blood glucose, obesity, high blood pressure, increased blood triacylglycerols and insulin resistance. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD), as a neurodegenerative process caused by widespread senile plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, is faced with an increasingly higher incidence as the global aging develops. 5 key findings →
The large majority of neuroimaging studies in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients have supported the idea that lifestyle factors may protect against the clinical manifestations of AD rather than influence AD neuropathological processes (the cognitive reserve hypothesis). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Aging and disease·2016-10-01
Genetic and environmental protective factors and risks modulate brain structure and function in neurodegenerative diseases and their preclinical stages. 2 key findings →
Cognitive reserve is a hypothetical concept introduced to explain discrepancies between severity of clinical dementia syndromes and the extent of dementia pathology. 5 key findings →
We discuss the role of bilingualism as a source of cognitive reserve and we propose the putative neural mechanisms through which lifelong bilingualism leads to a neural reserve that delays the onset of dementia. 1 key finding →
Epidemiologic evidence suggests that individuals with higher IQ, education, occupational attainment, or participation in leisure activities have a reduced risk of developing Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Cognitive reserve (CR) refers to the hypothesized capacity of an adult brain to cope with brain damage in order to minimize symptomatology. 5 key findings →
We studied neuroinflammation in individuals with late-life depression, as a risk factor for dementia, using [11C]PK11195 positron emission tomography (PET). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Biological psychiatry·2002-08-01
This article focuses on diagnostic and nosologic challenges intrinsic to geriatric depression, including characteristics interfering with symptom and syndrome ascertainment, the impact of medical and cognitive disorders, the usefulness of screening instruments, and barriers imposed by treatment settings. 2 key findings →
Late life depression (LLD) frequently presents with cognitive impairment, and growing evidence suggests that these disease processes are "linked" in multiple ways. 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 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.