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 1,976–2,000 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors(page 80 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 Healthy Brain Initiative: The Public Health Road Map for State and National Partnerships was recently updated for years 2018-2022, which includes recommendations for implementing emergency preparedness (EP) measures at the state and local levels with attention to the unique needs of people living with Alzheimer's disease and other related dementias (ADRD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·University of Chicago·2026-06-04
Dementia risk is influenced by biological and lifestyle factors as well as broader socioeconomic conditions; however, the extent to which socioeconomic deprivation creates structural exposures that affect cognitive aging remains unclear. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·Age and Ageing·2016-09-01
The results support the hypothesis that engaging in physical activity can compensate for urban-rural differences in cognitive performance in ageing. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
Of 6,911,104 patients (min=Idaho: 45,160; max=California: 2.46 million), we observed a substantial difference in overall diagnosed prevalence across states of residence: Oregon and Montana had the highest diagnosed prevalence (6.6% and 6.5%, respectively); New Mexico had the lowest (2.3%). 4 key findings →
Black Ohioans are concerned about the rising prevalence of Alzheimer’s Disease, however social barriers that prevent equitable access to care, support and treatment is of overwhelming concern. 1 key finding →
Geographical differences in Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) prevalence may be driven by under-diagnosis due to insufficient healthcare access. 2 key findings →
ADRD mortality rates were slightly higher in rural areas compared to urban areas, with no significant differences between rural-adjacent and rural-nonadjacent counties in recent years. 5 key findings →
From 2016 to 2022, Alzheimer’s disease mortality significantly increased among Black individuals (AAPC = 8.3%, 95% CI [2.6 to 16.0]; p < 0.05) and declined among White individuals (AAPC = −2.9%, 95% CI [−12.3 to 7.6] p < 0.05). 5 key findings →
These results support a functional hippocampal anterior‐posterior differentiation in memory processes and further stress the importance of integrating the dissociation of the hippocampus along its long‐axis concerning functional connectivity in memory processes and dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·Not indexed·None
This thesis developed new Bayesian models to enhance the spatial and temporal resolution of health estimates at the small area level in Australia. 5 key findings →
Excess salt intake is one of the relevant dietary determinants of elevated blood pressure and hypertension, with a direct impact on cardiovascular risk. 2 key findings →
Subcortical vascular mild cognitive impairment (svMCI) is known to be a prodromal stage of subcortical vascular dementia (SVaD) (1-3) who may also developed to mixed Alzheimer's disease (AD) (4). 4 key findings →
In conclusion, while differing in healthcare infrastructure, China, Japan, and South Korea converge in anchoring dementia care within the community. 1 key finding →
Social isolation (SI) and loneliness (perceived social isolation) are considered as risk factors for developing dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), in the elderly population. 5 key findings →
Researchers are focusing on modifiable risk factors for dementia, including sleep disturbances such as insomnia and sleep-disordered breathing (SDB), which are known to increase the risk of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD). 2 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.