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 2,026–2,050 of 2,174 studies in Risk factors(page 82 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.
Overall cancer mortality rates were 12.3% higher in persistent poverty counties versus all others, and 9.6% higher in persistent versus current poverty counties, with even greater disparities observed for specific cancer sites. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100.·British Food Journal·1998-09-01
Gaining competitive advantage in retailing requires knowledge of the attributes consumers use to evaluate stores and an understanding of why these attributes are important. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 26 out of 100.·Radiology·1932-02-01
Physical Examination.—Physical examination revealed that the patient was well developed, but poorly nourished, with an appearance of chronic illness. 1 key finding →
The findings demonstrate five central negative conditions of precarity that older people had to manage: (a) loss and discontinuity of home-based healthcare services, (b) stress after loss or disruption of social support, (c) problems of poverty, (d) cognitive impairment and declining health and (e) stress of eviction. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 26 out of 100.·ASHA Leader·2013-12-01
The fall caused a sprained wrist and significant bruising to her hip, and although her scrapes and bruises healed, she was left with an overwhelming fear of falling again. 5 key findings →
The disease-related mortality from chronic non-communicable diseases is an emerging issue of global health in middle to high income countries. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 26 out of 100.·Sustainability·2021-01-08
The aim of this paper is to examine the causes of food waste and potential prevention strategies from a grocery retail store owner’s perspective. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 26 out of 100.·Not indexed·None
Small area estimates (SAEs) are increasingly used in public health to assess disease and health behavior prevalence rates at more local levels of geography, better informing public health decision-making and interventions. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 26 out of 100.·Nurture·2026-05-21
In 2026, the beginning of the 15th Five-Year Plan, the Central No. 1 Document emphasized the cultivation and expansion of county-level wealth-creating industries as the core approach to ensuring stable income growth for farmers. 5 key findings →
Compared to direct estimation, the HB SAE model reduced the number of sub-districts with Relative Standard Errors (RSE) above 25% from 55 to 44, achieving lower Mean Squared Error (MSE) values and more stable estimates. 2 key findings →
Accompanied by Washington Winn, we paid one last visit to present him with a copy of the just published 5th edition of the Color Atlas. 5 key findings →
My feels Victorian because it is There are people feels Victorian because of I am I know I am I still for the and I could have If I make something it will not feel like such a but I might not be able to make anything I to make both for the and the I have something when I am I feel so from my own life that it is like a that I am When it happens when I am I the if the students think I am when I am just being much of teaching is anyway. won't know I am not in the When it happens and I am it feels like I am enough to be by the of When it happens and I am with my it is It is like and for each other when is in the I do not want to be a for them. 5 key findings →
Geographic variation in occurrence of dementia within the US has received little attention despite its importance for generation of new etiologic hypotheses and health services research. 1 key finding →
Food is any substance, composed of carbohydrates, water, fats and proteins, which can be eaten or drunk by animals, including humans, for nutrition or pleasure. 2 key findings →
Food deserts, areas in which it is difficult to obtain affordable, nutritious food, are especially problematic in low-income neighbourhoods. 5 key findings →
The subscription based business model has significantly expanded beyond digital services, deeply penetrating the e-grocery and food delivery sectors. 3 key findings →
The Test of Grocery Shopping Skills (TOGSS) is a performance measure of shopping ability in a grocery store that requires complex cognitive skills. 1 key finding →
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.