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.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a walking/talking program on residents' communication, ambulation, and level of function when there were two residents to one care provider (2:1). 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Moreover, physical activity in the elderly is associated with a decreased risk of mortality, of common chronic illnesses (i.e. cardiovascular disease or osteoarthritis) and of institutionalization as well as with a delay in functional decline. 5 key findings →

Participants: 240 Evidence: high

This study provides data on whether tailored nutritional care is beneficial to home-dwelling AD patients and their spouses. 5 key findings →

Participants: 202 Evidence: high

A study with a more intensive multidomain intervention might bring further insights on this topic. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,679 Evidence: high

LIBRA might be a useful tool to identify individuals for primary prevention interventions of dementia in midlife, and maybe in late life, but not in the oldest-old. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,256 Evidence: low

The vast majority of men > or =50 years old initially diagnosed with iRBD in this study eventually developed a parkinsonian disorder/dementia, often after a prolonged interval from onset of iRBD, with the mean interval being 14 years while the range extended to 29 years. 2 key findings →

Participants: 13 Evidence: low

Feeling lonely rather than being alone is associated with an increased risk of clinical dementia in later life and can be considered a major risk factor that, independently of vascular disease, depression and other confounding factors, deserves clinical attention. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

In a cross-section of older adults, vitamin D deficiency was associated with low mood and with impairment on two of four measures of cognitive performance. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 80 Evidence: moderate

In older adults, hearing loss is independently associated with an increased rate of cognitive decline, and has been identified to be a modifiable risk factor for dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 59 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's Disease is a complex, multifactorial, and comorbid condition. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

One of the most devastating nonmotor manifestations of PD is dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 13 Evidence: low

In each cohort, achieving just 10-21.4 min/day moderate-to-vigorous PA related to better executive function ( P P = .02). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,861 Evidence: moderate

After adjusting for demographics, apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 status, cognition, and comorbidities, the highest tertile of REM latency was associated with higher Aβ burden (β = 0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03 to 0.13, p = 0.002), elevated p-tau181 (β = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.13, p = 0.002), and reduced BDNF levels (β = -0.47, 95% CI: -0.68 to -0.13, p = 0.013), compared to the lowest tertile. 5 key findings →

Participants: 128 Evidence: low

The Relationship Between Sleep, Cognition, and Dementia Risk in People With Focal Epilepsy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2026-04-22

= 0.991). Optimal sleep modified both cognitive performance and dementia risk in individuals with focal epilepsy compared with stroke patients and healthy controls. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Outdoor activity is linked to lower dementia risk, particularly in those living in more accessible GS. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 187,724 Evidence: moderate

Neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, represent a growing global health crisis, yet current treatment strategies remain primarily palliative. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Combining aerobic exercise with cognitive training improves clinical outcomes in older adults with MCI and may influence stress-related neurobiological pathways. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high

The Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle (AIBL) study performed (11)C-Pittsburgh Compound B (PiB) scans in 177 healthy controls (HC), 57 mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subjects, and 53 mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 1,965 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.

1,037 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