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.

Sleep, EEG and mental function changes in senile dementia of the Alzheimer's type

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 1982-01-01

Sleep, EEG and mental function variables were studied in 44 subjects diagnosed as having probable senile dementia of the Alzheimer's type (SDAT) and 22 controls matched for age and minimal depression. 3 key findings →

Participants: 44 Evidence: low

Sleep and waking EEGs from 11 healthy nondemented elderly men and from ten inpatients for whom the diagnosis was probable senile dementia of Alzheimer's type (SDAT), were monitored in the subjects' typical home or ward environments or in the sleep laboratory, according to their customary sleep schedules. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The underlying cause of sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD) is unknown, but a number of environmental and genetic factors are likely to be involved. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Studies have assessed individual components of a western diet, but no study has assessed the long-term, cumulative effects of a western diet on aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Prevention of dementia in an ageing world: Evidence and biological rationale

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2020-03-19

As the population ages, the number of people with dementia is expected to increase in the coming decades, with consequences at the societal and individual levels. 4 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

(cobalamin)-dependent pathways. Supplementation of B vitamins has been shown to effectively reduce plasma homocysteine levels. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Exercise-induced oxidative stress results from the overproduction of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (ROS/RNS) during intense physical activity, potentially impairing muscle function and recovery. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The role of lifestyle medicine in menopausal health: a review of non-pharmacologic interventions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Climacteric 2025-09-03

Lifestyle medicine interventions were associated with reductions in vasomotor symptoms, improved sleep quality, enhanced mental well-being, healthier weight regulation, and reduced cardiometabolic and osteoporosis risk. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

At baseline, participants were aged 70-95 years (mean: 75.2 ± 4.3), with 54% being women. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The relation between vitamin A (VA) level and cognitive function and the underlying mechanisms have not been thoroughly investigated. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,817 Evidence: low

The Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet has been related to a lower risk of dementia and better cognitive function. 4 key findings →

Participants: 45,906 Evidence: low

Our analysis revealed that 26.40% of the participants had mild cognitive impairment, whereas 48.50% demonstrated low adherence to the MIND diet. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 462 Evidence: moderate

MCI patients showed significantly reduced plasma levels of TGF-β1 and increased TNF-α concentrations compared to other participants. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 37 Evidence: low

COG-T CHD is the first clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of computer-based cognitive training in patients with coronary heart disease, filling an important gap in the treatment evidence for cognitive digital therapy. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Cognitive decline and dementia represent major and growing global health challenges, driven largely by population aging and increased longevity. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The glymphatic system, a vital brain perivascular network for waste clearance, hinges on the functionality of the aquaporin 4 (AQP4) water channel. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The possible mediating role of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the relationship between alcohol use disorders (AUD) and the risk of early-onset (<age 65) and late-onset (≥age 65) dementia lacks formal investigation. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

In practice, knowledge and expertise are critical for effective functioning, and the available evidence suggests that older adults effectively employ specific knowledge and expertise and can gain new knowledge when it is required. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Higher levels of accordance with both the DASH and Mediterranean dietary patterns were associated with consistently higher levels of cognitive function in elderly men and women over an 11-y period. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,831 Evidence: low

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