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 1,676–1,700 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors (page 68 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.

Neighborhood disadvantage is associated with altered cortical organization

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

Our findings suggest differences in local cortical organization by neighborhood disadvantage, which also mediated the relationship between ADI and cognitive performance, providing a possible network‐based mechanism, explaining risk for cognitive decline and dementia associated with disadvantaged neighborhoods. 3 key findings →

Participants: 526 Evidence: low

The study sample was NHATS respondents who needed assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and who did not live with a spouse (N = 512). 3 key findings →

Participants: 512 Evidence: low

Dissecting the Interactions of Diabetes Mellitus and Hearing Loss with Cognitive Decline and Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Brain Sciences 2025-06-21

The aging population is increasingly affected by both diabetes mellitus and hearing loss, two conditions that often coexist and can significantly impact quality of life. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The findings indicate that the burden of dementia is rising in East and Southeast Asia, with women showing a higher burden across all indicators. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We investigated the effect of using smartphone-based calendars (Google and Outlook Calendar) on prospective memory in Alzheimer's disease (AD). we recruited two groups of participants with mild AD. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

It has been reported that taurine intake in the past may have a positive effect on present cognitive function in the elderly. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 481 Evidence: low

An Interprofessional Virtual Healthcare Neighborhood (VHN) was designed to deliver information, peer support, and professional guidance to caregivers of individuals with dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 28 Evidence: low

This study investigated the current status and distribution of Alzheimer's disease (AD) among Mongolian and Han individuals who were at least 55 years old and living in rural areas of Inner Mongolia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 9,266 Evidence: low

Accessibility to food stores offering nutritious and affordable options is critical to ensure urban residents lead healthy lives. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Sleep-wake rhythm disturbances in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) make a strong demand on caregivers and are among the most important reasons for institutionalization. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Pharmacological inhibitors of glycogen synthase kinase 3

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Trends in pharmacological sciences 2004-09-01

Three closely related forms of glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK-3alpha, GSK-3beta and GSK-3beta2) have a major role in Wnt and Hedgehog signaling pathways and regulate the cell-division cycle, stem-cell renewal and differentiation, apoptosis, circadian rhythm, transcription and insulin action. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Acetylcholine is widely distributed in the nervous system and has been implicated to play a critical role in cerebral cortical development, cortical activity, controlling cerebral blood flow and sleep-wake cycle as well as in modulating cognitive performances and learning and memory processes. 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 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