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.

Systematic review of health behavioral risks and cognitive health in older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. International psychogeriatrics 2009-11-03

The review demonstrates accumulating evidence supporting health behavioral effects in reducing the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

A prolonged preclinical phase of more than two decades before the onset of dementia suggested that initial brain changes of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the symptoms of advanced AD may represent a unique continuum. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Food combination and Alzheimer disease risk: a protective diet

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-04-12

Simultaneous consideration of previous knowledge regarding potentially AD-related nutrients and multiple food groups can aid in identifying food combinations that are associated with AD risk. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Risk Factors for Phenoconversion in Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Behavior Disorder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2022-01-24

Our findings elucidate the predictive values of environmental factors and comorbid conditions in identifying RBD patients at higher risk of phenoconversion. 4 key findings →

Participants: 319 Evidence: moderate

Physical and cognitive exercise may prevent or delay dementia in later life but the neural mechanisms underlying these therapeutic benefits are largely unknown. 3 key findings →

Participants: 100 Evidence: low

Sedentary behavior (SB) is associated with cardiometabolic disease and mortality, but its association with dementia is currently unclear. 4 key findings →

Participants: 146,651 Evidence: low

14 IPD-Work studies were assessed and six studies were excluded due to missing outcome data and unavailable data for pooling, resulting in the inclusion of eight studies with 124 909 participants. 5 key findings →

Participants: 909 Evidence: low

We included 394,255 individuals including 184 incident cases of CD and 459 of UC after median follow-up of 13.6 years (4,889,910 person-years). 5 key findings →

Participants: 394,255 Evidence: moderate

A randomised controlled trial of physical activity and cognitive training in older adults: the PhABHeaD study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Trials 2026-05-07

If a substantial synergetic effect is detected, it may lead to the use of more widespread concurrent physical and cognitive training and the potential development of methods to make concurrent training practical. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 126 Evidence: high

In the UK Biobank cohort (N = 166,916), MIND diet demonstrated the broadest neuroprotective effects. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 166,916 Evidence: high

Exercise therapy for the treatment of delirium in the intensive care unit

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2025-08-12

Outcomes of interest were duration of delirium, health-related quality of life, delirium severity, cognitive function, mortality in the ICU, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay and adverse events. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 491 Evidence: high

Sixty-six studies met inclusion criteria for the relationship between physical activity and functional independence, and 34 were included with a cognitive function outcome. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

When compared with the Low MedDiet group, the High MedDiet group was associated with better L&M performance and larger dentate gyri. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 82 Evidence: moderate

In this large series of PSG-confirmed and probable RBD cases that underwent autopsy, the strong association of RBD with the synucleinopathies was further substantiated and a wider spectrum of disorders which can underlie RBD now are more apparent. 2 key findings →

Participants: 147 Evidence: low

Alternatively, lesser engagement in social activities may be a marker of impending cognitive decline in MCI. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 78 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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.

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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.

1,052 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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