alzhub.org
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.

Research

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1,951–1,975 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors (page 79 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.

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

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.

Increased Precision in County-Level Volume Estimates in the United States National Forest Inventory With Area-Level Small Area Estimation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 2022-04-26

Many National Forest Inventory (NFI) stakeholders would benefit from accurate estimates at finer geographic scales than most currently implemented in operational estimates using NFI sample data. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Performance on an Everyday Life Activity in Persons Diagnosed with Alcohol Dependency Compared to Healthy Controls: Relations between a Computerized Shopping Task and Cognitive and Clinical Variables†

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Alcohol and Alcoholism 2012-02-20

Performance on the shopping task significantly differentiated patients and healthy controls for several variables and, in particular, for total time. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY HOME HEALTH CARE FOR PERSONS WITH DEMENTIA

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2024-12-01

Using multiple Medicare Public Use Files (PUF), including star ratings for home health quality of patient care (QoPC), home health care CAHPS survey (HHCAHPS), county-level ADRD prevalence, and Medicare FFS enrollment, we found that the median county-level number of home health agencies was 15 (IQR 8-29), star rating was 3.4 (IQR 3.1-3.7) for QoPC and 3.8 (IQR 3.5-4.0) for HHCAHPS. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Nexus Between Exposure to Natural Outdoor Environments and Cognitive Competence among Older Adults in China

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 2025-03-26

With a rapidly aging population and an increasing number of older people with cognitive impairment, a multitude of social problems could arise. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Sleep Apnea as a Modifiable Risk Factor for Cognitive Decline and Dementia: Implications for Clinical Practice and Public Health

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Journal of Public Health and Primary Care 2026-05-01

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), a prevalent sleep-disordered breathing condition, is increasingly recognized as a modifiable risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Calculating cognitive decline in delirium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2014-06-22

The 101 CADIS patients demonstrated several new findings: (i) the mean delay between symptom onset and admission was 1.4 days; (ii) for daily attention tests, 5-digit span forward improved to baseline in a mean of 1.3 days, whereas 6-digit span improved in a mean of 5.7 days; (iii) Delirium index, a 7-question instrument for monitoring delirium [2–3] improved to baseline in a mean of 5.8 days. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

RICHMOND HEALTH AND WELLNESS PROGRAM: COMMUNITY ADVISORY COUNCIL OUTCOMES

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2018-11-01

The Richmond Health and Wellness Program (RHWP) provides interprofessional care coordination and wellness services within Richmond’s low income senior housing communities for approximately 1,000 subsidized housing units. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Meeting the mental health needs of people with the complex neurodevelopment condition, Prader-Willi syndrome: a major challenge for mental health services

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. European Psychiatry 2026-06-01

The behavioural and mental health needs of people with PWS result from the interactions between biological vulnerabilities associated with having PWS and living in a changing and demanding environment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The growing link between microbes, mood and mental health

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. Knowable Magazine 2024-01-09

Most remarkably, research by Cryan and others has shown that transplanting microbes from the guts of people with psychiatric disorders like depression to the guts of rodents can cause comparable symptoms in the animals.CREDIT: JAMES PROVOST (CC BY-ND)Neuroscientist John CryanUniversity College CorkThese effects may occur in several ways — through the vagus nerve connecting the gut to the brain, through the influence of gut bacteria on our immune systems, or by microbes synthesizing molecules that our nerve cells use to communicate. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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