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 1–25 of 1,279 studies in Risk factors scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 1 of 52) · 29,380 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.

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.

Neocortical neurofibrillary tangle densities were substantially correlated with dementia severity, and to a greater degree than was true for senile plaque densities. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Systemic immune challenges trigger and drive Alzheimer-like neuropathology in mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of neuroinflammation 2012-07-02

Accumulating evidence suggests that neuroinflammation, mediated by the brain's innate immune system, contributes to AD neuropathology and exacerbates the course of the disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our results validate the PHQ-9 and revalidate the BDI against a gold-standard measure for depressive disorders in the dialysis population. 4 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of neurodegenerative disease associated with dementia in the elderly. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

memantine, cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI), antipsychotic use] estimated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% CIs for resident, facility, and HRR characteristics. 5 key findings →

Participants: 9,735 Evidence: low

CBSD revealed a framework for how economic hardship, especially low income and unemployment, reduces access to physical and mental healthcare, driving dementia risk. 5 key findings →

Participants: 234 Evidence: low

Higher student-teacher ratio was associated with worse cognitive function and greater school year length was associated with better cognitive function. 5 key findings →

Participants: 433 Evidence: low

Several reviews have summarized the prevalence of dementia in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Studies examining associations between greenspace and Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) outcomes are rapidly on the rise, yet no known literature reviews have summarized the racialized/ethnic group and geographic variation of those published studies. 1 key finding →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

Associations among cognitive performance, VCAM-1, and GFAP in black adults: The ARCHES study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neurobiology of Aging 2026-07-07

Astrocytic injury and endothelial activation are interconnected processes within the neurovascular system that may contribute to variability in cognitive performance among cognitively unimpaired adults. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 313 Evidence: low

There were observable geographic variations in education (range 13.4-16.2 years, Figure 1), age (range 66.7-72.4 years) and severable modifiable risk factors for dementia across Tasmania, Australia. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 8,891 Evidence: moderate

The relationship between neighborhood disadvantage and the brain age gap

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

This analysis found that the mean brain age gap does not significantly differ between Quintile 5 and Quintiles 1‐4 (p≤0.45), however statistical power was low given very broad confidence intervals. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,052 Evidence: moderate

Hypertension is known to be a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, but its relationship with cognitive impairment and dementia is an emerging area of study. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

A total of 281 dementia patients (mean age 74.9 ± 9.2 y, 46.3% females) and 281 age-matched controls (mean age 74.3 ± 4.6 y, 55.9% females) were included. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 281 Evidence: moderate

This study aimed to examine the associations between nursing home (NH) quality and prevalence of newly admitted NH residents with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), and to assess the extent to which market-level wages for certified nursing assistants (CNAs) and state Medicaid behavioral and mental health add-on policy may influence such associations. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,777 Evidence: moderate

There is a lower prevalence of diagnosed probable AD in patients taking 2 different 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors-lovastatin and pravastatin.

↑ 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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 (3.5% 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