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.

Naproxen and celecoxib do not prevent AD in early results from a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Neurology 2007-04-25

These results do not support the hypothesis that celecoxib or naproxen prevent Alzheimer dementia, at least within the early years after initiation of treatment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Among 16 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 32.6 (4.4) years; 9 participants were women, and 7 were men. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: high

Mild TBI and risk of Parkinson disease: A Chronic Effects of Neurotrauma Consortium Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Neurology 2018-04-18

Among military veterans, mTBI is associated with 56% increased risk of PD, even after adjusting for demographics and medical/psychiatric comorbidities. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 325,870 Evidence: moderate

Being married is associated with reduced risk of dementia than widowed and lifelong single people, who are also underdiagnosed in routine clinical practice. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 15 Evidence: high

The Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention is a longitudinal observational cohort study enriched with persons with a parental history (PH) of probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,561 Evidence: moderate

Leisure activities and the risk of dementia in the elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2003-06-01

Participation in leisure activities is associated with a reduced risk of dementia, even after adjustment for base-line cognitive status and after the exclusion of subjects with possible preclinical dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 469 Evidence: moderate

The search yielded 115 distinctly named non-genetic risk and protective factors with a significant association, with various strengths of evidence. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

This trial that enlist the support of private enterprises will lead to the creation of new services for dementia prevention as well as to verify the effectiveness of multi-domain interventions for dementia prevention. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

While most studies to date have been cross-sectional, limiting the establishment of causal relationships, the potential benefits of trace lithium for suicide prevention and dementia prevention are notable, especially in the absence of radical treatments for suicide and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

To effectively combat dementia onset and progression, lifestyle-based interventions targeting multiple risk factors and disease mechanisms through a multidomain approach - tailored and implemented early in the disease process - have emerged as promising. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Our search yielded 182 meta-analyses meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 59 were selected to calculate DALY-weighted risk factors for a composite outcome. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Hearing Loss, Hearing Aid Use, and Risk of Dementia in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery 2024-02-01

The results of this cohort study suggest that hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, especially among people not using hearing aids, suggesting that hearing aids might prevent or delay the onset and progression of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 573,088 Evidence: moderate

Using datasets from a wide range of geographical regions, we found that both early life education and adulthood occupational complexity were independently predictive of dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,195 Evidence: moderate

High total cholesterol levels in late life associated with a reduced risk of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Neurology 2005-05-01

High cholesterol in late life was associated with decreased dementia risk, which is in contrast to previous studies suggesting high cholesterol in mid-life is a risk factor for later dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 392 Evidence: moderate

When compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine sedation reduced incidence, delayed onset, and shortened duration of POD in elderly patients after cardiac surgery. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Exergaming and older adult cognition: a cluster randomized clinical trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. American journal of preventive medicine 2012-02-01

Cybercycling older adults achieved better cognitive function than traditional exercisers, for the same effort, suggesting that simultaneous cognitive and physical exercise has greater potential for preventing cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Increasing crystallised intelligence and fruit and vegetable consumption and eliminating depression and diabetes are likely to have the biggest impact on reducing the incidence of dementia, outweighing even the effect of removing the principal known genetic risk factor. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,433 Evidence: moderate

Socioeconomic differences in dementia risk can be partly explained by differences in modifiable health conditions and lifestyle factors. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,346 Evidence: moderate

Scale of benefit is comparable with in-person training, indicating its potential as a public health intervention. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,912 Evidence: high

Cardiovascular diseases and risk of dementia in the general population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 2025-03-05

Observationally, CVDs were associated with risk of all incident outcomes in meta-analyses, with hazard ratios up to 7.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.20, 7.92). 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,373 Evidence: high

Despite differences in CVR management within the countries considered, it was possible to design and implement the HATICE multidomain intervention. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Association between vaccinations and risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2025-10-30

Adult vaccinations, particularly against herpes zoster, influenza, pneumococcus and Tdap, are associated with a lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 104,031,186 Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

10 of the 862 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 (3.7% 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