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.

Age-related hearing loss and cognitive decline - The potential mechanisms linking the two

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Auris, nasus, larynx 2018-09-01

The amount of attention to age-related hearing loss (ARHL) has been growing, not only from the perspective of being one of the most common health conditions affecting older adults, but also from the perspective of its relation to cognition. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Western countries are experiencing aging populations and increased longevity; thus, the incidence of dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) in these countries is projected to soar. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Noncommunicable disease now contributes to the World Health Organization top 10 causes of death in low-, middle- and high-income countries. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

To evaluate the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation therapies (CRTs) for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

The 12 risk factors account for 60.3% of dementia cases in China, including 14.0% in early life, 8.8% in midlife, and 37.5% in later life. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Childhood obesity is a growing global health concern, with established links to physical activity, nutrition, and, increasingly, to prenatal and perinatal factors. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

The ten top-funded companies offering DDLS received a total funding of EUR 128.52 million, of which three companies collected more than 75%. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The direct associations identified may present potential intervention targets, while the indirect relationships suggest that other factors are influential in the pathway linking social isolation and loneliness with chronic disease and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,670 Evidence: moderate

= 0.005). Cox regression analysis revealed that polypharmacy was significantly associated with a reduced risk of MCI progression to dementia (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 0.78) after adjusting for covariates. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Multidomain interventions may benefit younger older adults or those with overly strict or lenient HbA1c control; however, these findings need confirmation in future studies. 3 key findings →

Participants: 531 Evidence: high

The intricate relationship between dietary habits and cognitive function is gaining increasing attention, with a focus on the gut-brain axis as a modifiable target for intervention. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Along with rapid global population aging, the age-related cognitive disorders such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia have posed a serious threat to public health, health care system, and sustainable economic and societal development of all countries. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

This article describes the protocol for the Systematic Multi-domain Alzheimer's Risk Reduction Trial (SMARRT), a single-blind randomized pilot trial to test a personalized, pragmatic, multi-domain Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk reduction intervention in a US integrated healthcare delivery system. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

[Dementia prevention and primary care: Estimation of the target population]

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Fortschritte der Neurologie-Psychiatrie 2020-09-02

In a sample of 2,398,405 patients receiving primary care, the target population relevant for dementia prevention measures in 2018 consisted of 191,883 patients with hypertension, 23,308 with obesity, 5,059 with hearing loss, 120,200 with diabetes and 43,233 with depression. 5 key findings →

Participants: 51 Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 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 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 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