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.

Vaccination is increasingly acknowledged as an effective preventive measure not only against specific infections, but also for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in high-risk patients. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

At least 45% of dementia and 60% of stroke cases are due to modifiable risk factors and could in part be prevented through healthy behavior. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,478 Evidence: moderate

Between Sept 1, 2017, and Feb 28, 2019, 19 403 individuals were invited to participate and 9745 participants (1525 with dementia, 8220 without dementia) were included. 4445 (45·6%) of 9745 participants were male and 5300 (54·4%) were female. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 403 Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) increases the risk of dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 84 Evidence: high

= 0.279). No adverse events were reported. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

LIGHT will provide insight into the implementation and (cost-)effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention for indicated prevention in a memory clinic setting. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Association between periodontal disease and Alzheimer's disease: a scoping review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2025-10-15

PD may be a modifiable risk factor for AD, and periodontal interventions could contribute to AD prevention and management. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 52 Evidence: moderate

Following a Mediterranean diet high in plant-based foods and fish, low in meat and dairy foods, and with moderate alcohol intake has been shown to promote healthy aging. 1 key finding →

Participants: 832 Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) affects approximately 35 million people worldwide. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Higher cognitive (HR: 0.91/SD, 95%CI: 0.84; 1.00) and brain reserve (HR: 0.88/SD, 95%CI: 0.77; 1.00) were associated with a lower risk of a depressive event after adjustment for baseline depressive symptoms. 5 key findings →

Participants: 105 Evidence: low

The apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) allele is associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer disease and a decreased risk of glaucoma, but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

An alternative method for estimating efficacy of the AN1792 vaccine for Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2007-11-01

Published results from the AN1792 trial may have underestimated the effect of vaccine on progression of cerebral atrophy among patients with an antibody response to the vaccine. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial 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

Since 1989, four Canadian Consensus Conferences on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD) have provided evidence-based dementia guidelines for Canadian clinicians and researchers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Of 3424 articles on potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia, 1719 met our inclusion criteria; 60 were deemed to be of good or fair quality. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This diverse sample of Indigenous (1.65%), Black (11.43%), Hispanic (9.85%), and White (77.07%) older adults had a mean age of 61 (SD = 9.66) and was 52% female. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27,327 Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

9 of the 859 studies in this tag, 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 9. The same 9 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 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