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

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.

Baseline cognition was poorer in individuals born and residing in the South, particularly those attending desegregated schools at age 12. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Our findings suggest that poor chewing ability is associated with cognitive impairment or dementia in the elderly living in rural area. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 295 Evidence: low

The study sample included 21 193 170 patients with 32 199 587 beneficiary-year observations (mean [SD] age, 75.5 [7.3] years; 18 936 697 [58.8%] female; 983 513 [3.1%] Asian or Pacific Islander, 3 190 515 [9.9%] Black, 2 710 930 [8.4%] Hispanic, and 25 314 629 [78.6%] White). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 21 Evidence: low

Index participants averaged 71.9 years, with > 50% lacking formal education. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,309 Evidence: moderate

One-third of adults with neurological conditions in China have low health literacy, with pronounced socioeconomic and geographic disparities. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,120 Evidence: low

Lifespan exposures to rural–urban conditions and later‐life cognitive function

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-06-01

Linear and logistic regression showed that childhood rural residence was associated with lower memory (standardized beta (β) = -1.68, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [-2.39, -0.97]), executive function (β = -1.20, 95% CI [-1.84, -0.55]), and language fluency (β = -0.86, 95% CI [-1.64, -0.08]). 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,073 Evidence: low

In total, 156 individuals were assessed for eligibility, and 79 (51%) were recruited (mean age 61.6 ± 6.9 (range 60-75) years; 68% male). 5 key findings →

Participants: 156 Evidence: high

Reported rates of dementia differ by race, although most studies have not focused on carefully measured outcomes, confounding by education or other demographic factors, nor have they studied other outcomes other than dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 15,792 Evidence: moderate

Plasma AD biomarkers vary significantly in association with common medical comorbidities as well as ethnicity. 5 key findings →

Participants: 445 Evidence: low

Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics Associated With Veterans' Digital Needs

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. JAMA network open 2024-11-04

Among 6419 veterans screened (mean [SD] age, 67.6 [15.9] years; 716 female [11.2%]; 1740 Black or African American [27.1%]; 202 Hispanic or Latino [3.1%]; 4125 White [64.3%]), 2740 (42.7%) reported 1 or more digital needs. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Racial disparities in dementia may be reduced by prevention and management of disease and promoting educational attainment among blacks and Hispanics. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 926 studies in this tag that have a study page, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 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    Where this research is being discussed: events