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.

Effective, scalable dementia prevention interventions are needed to address modifiable risk factors given global burden of dementia and challenges in developing disease-modifying treatments. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 6,104 Evidence: high

Speed of processing training results in lower risk of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 88 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2017-11-07

Initially, healthy older adults randomized to speed of processing cognitive training had a 29% reduction in their risk of dementia after 10 years of follow-up compared to the untreated control group. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,802 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a pathology with increasing prevalence in the context of a more long-lived society and it is the first cause of dementia in western countries. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 12,458 Evidence: high

An 18-month multimodal intervention for older adults at risk of dementia could improve their cognitive function. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 203 Evidence: high

Trial of the MIND Diet for Prevention of Cognitive Decline in Older Persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 87 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2023-07-18

Among cognitively unimpaired participants with a family history of dementia, changes in cognition and brain MRI outcomes from baseline to year 3 did not differ significantly between those who followed the MIND diet and those who followed the control diet with mild caloric restriction. 5 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 604 Evidence: null result

In this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, blood pressure lowering with antihypertensive agents compared with control was significantly associated with a lower risk of incident dementia or cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 96,158 Evidence: high

Modifiable vascular and lifestyle-related risk factors have been associated with dementia risk in observational studies. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 631 Evidence: high

Data collection and analysis We initially screened search results using a 'crowdsourcing' method in which members of Cochrane's citizen science platform identify RCTs. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 400 Evidence: high

The interventions were positively perceived, with 72.0% finding the consultation informative and 69.2% considering the app useful. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 188 Evidence: high

Adults aged 65+ are at highest risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and prior to the distribution of vaccines in the U.S., were strongly advised to quarantine at home to reduce risk of infection. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 156 Evidence: high

Adherence to Mediterranean diet and health status: meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 83 out of 100. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2008-09-11

Greater adherence to a Mediterranean diet is associated with a significant improvement in health status, as seen by a significant reduction in overall mortality (9%), mortality from cardiovascular diseases (9%), incidence of or mortality from cancer (6%), and incidence of Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease (13%). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 574,299 Evidence: high

Further studies are warranted to develop and refine the specific MIND diet for different populations. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 224,049 Evidence: moderate

Effect of Aspirin on Cardiovascular Events and Bleeding in the Healthy Elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 81 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2018-09-16

After a median of 4.7 years of follow-up, the rate of cardiovascular disease was 10.7 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 11.3 events per 1000 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.08). 4 key findings →

Participants: 19,114 Evidence: low

Current pharmacologic therapies are for symptomatic AD patients, whereas nonpharmacologic training is administrable before symptom onset. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 125 Evidence: high

There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 22 Evidence: high

Profiles of high risk for future dementia are well understood and are likely to concern mostly those in low-income and middle-income countries and people at greater disadvantage in high-income countries. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,400 Evidence: high

Blood pressure lowering and prevention of dementia: an individual patient data meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 80 out of 100. European Heart Journal 2022-12-21

The first single-stage individual patient data meta-analysis from randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials provides evidence to support benefits of antihypertensive treatment in late-mid and later life to lower the risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 28,008 Evidence: high

Screening commenced in July 2022. Currently, 1,965 participants have been randomized into lifestyle intervention (n = 772) and control groups (n = 1,193). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 772 Evidence: high

The task force issued five statements related to the management of anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adults admitted to the ICU. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 24 Evidence: high

A total of 21,788 citations were screened, and seven studies of diverse quality were included in the review, comprising 1,691 participants. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,691 Evidence: high

Despite older racial and ethnic minorities (REMs) being more likely to develop dementia they are underrepresented in clinical trials focused on neurological disorders. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 100,748 Evidence: high

↑ 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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