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.

Effect of lifestyle activities on Alzheimer disease biomarkers and cognition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2012-11-01

None of the lifestyle variables were correlated with the biomarkers, and the path associations between lifestyle variables and biomarkers were not significant (p > 0.05). 3 key findings →

Participants: 515 Evidence: low

The present study showed the potential use of IY intervention in reducing stress, anxiety, and depression. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high

Health benefits of physical activity in older patients: a review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. International journal of clinical practice 2009-02-01

As the number of elderly persons in our country increases, more attention is being given to geriatric healthcare needs and successful ageing is becoming an important topic in medical literature. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

These findings support the view that chronic financial pressures associated with low income exert a weathering effect that results in premature aging. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

20 (45%) patients developed a neurological disorder after a mean of 11.5 years from the reported onset of RBD and a mean follow-up of 5.1 years from the diagnosis of idiopathic RBD at our sleep centre. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

These data suggest that among aged subjects with cognitive impairment and/or parkinsonism, the MSQ has adequate SN and SP for the diagnosis of RBD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate

Rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD) is common in Parkinson disease (PD), but its relationship to the varied neurotransmitter deficits of PD and prognostic significance remain incompletely understood. 4 key findings →

Participants: 35 Evidence: low

Identifying nutrition- and lifestyle-based risk factors for cognitive impairment and dementia may aid future primary prevention efforts. 4 key findings →

Participants: 104 Evidence: moderate

We tested the hypotheses that higher levels of and persistence of midlife leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) are associated long-term with lower cognitive decline and less incident dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 10,705 Evidence: low

Mind Diet Adherence and Cognitive Performance in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2021-01-01

Adherence to the Mediterranean-DASH for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet has previously been associated with cognitive decline and dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,584 Evidence: low

We examined the association of social activity with cognitive decline in 1138 persons without dementia at baseline with a mean age of 79.6 (SD = 7.5) who were followed for up to 12 years (mean = 5.2; SD = 2.8). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,138 Evidence: low

The relationship between sleep quality, neurofilament light chain (NFL), and cognitive impairment, including the potential effect of plasma NFL in this association, remains unclear. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 640 Evidence: moderate

We identify three distinct profiles: active healthy sleepers (AHS; 64.0%), fragmented poor sleepers (FPS; 14.1%), and long and frequent nappers (LFN; 21.9%). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Social isolation and loneliness were associated with a greater risk for incident dementia among T2DM individuals, with differential explanatory factors. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 24,986 Evidence: moderate

- Cognition was assessed with the Ruff Figural Fluency Test (RFFT), measuring non-verbal fluency and executive functioning. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 23,798 Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

10 of the 1,888 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.

1,034 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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