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 176–200 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors (page 8 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.

Compared with controls, patients with idiopathic REM sleep behaviour disorder had decreased colonic 11 C-donepezil uptake (-0·322, 95% CI -0·112 to -0·531; p=0·0020), 123 I-MIBG heart:mediastinum ratio (-0·508, -0·353 to -0·664; p 18 F-DOPA uptake (Ki; -0·0023, -0·0009 to -0·0037; p=0·0013). 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate

Vascular risk factors, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obesity and dyslipidaemia often co-occur. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate

Social isolation and cognitive decline in older adults: a longitudinal study across 24 countries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. BMC Geriatrics 2025-10-14

Social isolation was significantly associated with reduced cognitive ability (pooled effect = -0.07, 95% CI = -0.08, -0.05), with consistently negative effects across memory, orientation, and executive ability. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 101,581 Evidence: high

After a median follow-up time of 14.3 (7.9-20.0) years, dementia was recorded in 530 (1.2%) individuals with type 1 diabetes and 1,867 (0.9%) age-, sex-, and county-matched control individuals (mean baseline age 33.0 [14.0] years). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 43,440 Evidence: moderate

= 0.009). Significant differences in annualized changes in these FA and MD values were found depending on the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes and smoking. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,471 Evidence: moderate

This study classified preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) using cognitive screening, neighborhood deprivation via the area deprivation index (ADI), and sociodemographic and genetic risk factors. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,792 Evidence: moderate

Adequate vitamin D supplementation and sensible sunlight exposure to reach optimal vitamin D status are among the front line factors of prophylaxis for the spectrum of disorders. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Patterns of chronic multimorbidity in the elderly population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2009-02-01

In persons with multimorbidity, there exists co-occurrence of diseases beyond chance, which clinicians need to take into account in their daily practice. 2 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,099 Evidence: moderate

Twenty studies met inclusion criteria. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Increased α-synuclein egress in serum neuronal exosomes precedes the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease, persists with disease progression and in combination with clusterin predicts and differentiates Parkinson's disease from atypical parkinsonism. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 314 Evidence: moderate

Association of Neighborhood-Level Disadvantage With Alzheimer Disease Neuropathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2020-06-11

The sample consisted of 447 decedents (249 men [56%]; mean [SD] age, 80.3 [9.5] years; median year of death, 2011) spanning 24 years of donation. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 24 Evidence: low

A total of 162 studies were included, with 88 (54.3%) exploring potential risk factors and 74 (45.7%) examining specific risk factors. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 162 Evidence: moderate

Five-Year Changes in 24-Hour Sleep-Wake Activity and Dementia Risk in Oldest Old Women

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2025-03-19

Of 733 participants (mean age 82.5 ± 2.9 years), 164 (22.4%) developed MCI and 93 (12.7%) developed dementia by the follow-up visit. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 321 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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