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

30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–20 of 20 studies matching “financial” in Risk factors · 30,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 20 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; 15,654 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.

Socioeconomic disparities and nutritional aging: how food insecurity and financial hardship accelerate health decline in older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Frontiers in Nutrition 2026-06-08

This narrative review examines how socioeconomic disparities accelerate health decline in older adults. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

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

New Approaches to Preventing Financial Exploitation: A Focus on the Banks

⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Public Policy & Aging Report 2016-01-01

The largest increase in the older adult population in U.S. history is something to celebrate—yet, at the same time, current and future trends signal that financial exploitation is, and will continue to be, a significant threat for older adults. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Relational Design for Dementia and Job Significance (ReDeSign): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of an online dementia training for retail workers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications 2022-01-20

ReDeSign provides dementia training to convenience store workers and contributes to developing an inclusive community for people with dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 62 Evidence: high

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

Instrumental activities of daily living in older adults with epilepsy: A cross‐sectional and longitudinal multicenter study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Epilepsia 2026-09-07

Of 57 participants (mean age ± SD = 66.6 ± 7.2 years; female = 52.6%), 38.6% (n = 22) had MCI-level functional impairment and 17.5% (n = 10) had dementia-level functional impairment. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate

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

Geospatial analysis of patients’ social determinants of health for health systems science and disparity research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. International Anesthesiology Clinics 2022-12-08

The cross-disciplinary expertise, required for GA, common in the days before medical specialization and enabled by the relative paucity of development in various fields compared with today, can be reborn with the advent of Electronic Health Records (EHR) systems that make the tools of medical geography accessible to a wide variety of health care researchers and clinical subspecialties. 4 key findings →

Participants: 127 Evidence: low

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

Neighborhood walkability, healthy food environments, and cognitive decline over 14 years among midlife women: Study of Women's Health Across the Nation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Women living in areas with higher walkability showed slower rates of decline in immediate (estimate=0.019, SE=0.009) and delayed recall (estimate=0.018, SE=0.008) (Figure 1). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Multilevel and multidimensional features of socioeconomic status and cognitive function in older adulthood: a cross-sectional analysis of the IGNITE study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. The Lancet Regional Health - Americas 2025-08-18

[95% CI] = 0.148 [0.077-0.219]; executive function, 0.138 [0.067-0.208]; episodic memory, 0.020 [-0.051 to 0.091]; working memory, 0.128 [0.059-0.197]; visuospatial processing, 0.094 [0.023-0.164]) outperformed area-level SES in detecting cognitive deficits, and demonstrated widespread associations with poorer performance across cognitive domains. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Multilevel and Multidimensional Features of Socioeconomic Status and Cognitive Function in Older Adulthood: Findings from the IGNITE Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Lower objective SES was associated with poorer performance on all cognitive domains: episodic memory (β = 0.115, p = 0.003), executive function (β = 0.210, p 0.05). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

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

Social Frailty and Social Isolation in the Context of Dementia: A Simultaneous Concept Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2025-04-01

The attributes of concepts of social frailty and social isolation overlap, including being alone and having limited or less social activities, engagements or interactions. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Changing the food environment: the effect of trained volunteers on mealtime care for older people in hospital

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. Proceedings of The Nutrition Society 2017-10-29

This review will describe the evidence for changing the hospital environment to improve nutrition of older people, with particular emphasis on the role of additional mealtime assistance. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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