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.

Our findings indicate that quantitative gait measures predict future risk of cognitive decline and dementia in initially non-demented older adults. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 427 Evidence: moderate

The development of MCI is associated with measurements of cognition and depression, racial and constitutional factors, and cerebrovascular disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 927 Evidence: moderate

We found significant independent associations with overall fracture risk in women for age, body mass index, ethnic origin, alcohol intake, smoking status, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, any cancer, cardiovascular disease, dementia, diagnosis or treatment for epilepsy, history of falls, chronic liver disease, Parkinson's disease, rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus, chronic renal disease, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, previous fracture, endocrine disorders, gastrointestinal malabsorption, any antidepressants, corticosteroids, unopposed hormone replacement therapy, and parental history of osteoporosis. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,142,673 Evidence: moderate

Data were drawn from the UK Biobank cohort study with a total of 228 223 participants with Hospital Episodes Statistics and primary care linkage health records. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,378 Evidence: moderate

Dissecting the genetic and proteomic risk factors for delirium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Nature Aging 2025-11-24

Delirium is an acute change in cognition, common in hospitalized older adults, and associated with high healthcare and human cost; however, delirium's genetic and proteomic background remains poorly understood. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,059,130 Evidence: high

Long-Term Intake of Red Meat in Relation to Dementia Risk and Cognitive Function in US Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Neurology 2025-01-15

= 0.04). Replacing 1 serving per day of nuts and legumes for processed red meat was associated with a 19% lower risk of dementia (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.86), 1.37 fewer years of cognitive aging (95% CI -2.49 to -0.25), and a 21% lower risk of SCD (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.92). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

From October 2018 to March 2020, 58 participants were recruited (29 per group, 95% [86%-99%]). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 58 Evidence: high

Compared with non-users, SGLT-2i, GLP-1RA, TZD and metformin were associated with the reduced risk of dementia in patients with T2D. SGLT-2i, and GLP-1RA may serve as the optimal choice to improve the cognitive prognosis in patients with T2D. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,462,926 Evidence: moderate

Visual Impairment, Eye Conditions, and Diagnoses of Neurodegeneration and Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-07-01

In this cohort and MR study of UK Biobank participants, cataracts were associated with increased risk of dementia, especially vascular dementia, and reduced total brain volumes. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 304,953 Evidence: moderate

Alongside APOE ε4, iPRS-DEM may refine risk stratification for the enrichment of dementia clinical trials and prevention programs. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 241,935 Evidence: moderate

Cancer linked to Alzheimer disease but not vascular dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2009-12-23

In white older adults, prevalent Alzheimer disease (AD) was longitudinally associated with a reduced risk of cancer, and a history of cancer was associated with a reduced risk of AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,020 Evidence: moderate

Metformin should continue to be used as a first line therapy for diabetes in patients at risk of developing dementia or Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Stroke, dementia, and hypertension are associated with late-onset epilepsy; however, the role of other vascular and lifestyle factors remains unclear. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 792 Evidence: moderate

Incidence of dementia is nearly 50 times higher in the year after a major stroke compared with that in the general population, but excess risk is substantially lower after transient ischaemic attack and minor stroke. 1 key finding →

Participants: 728 Evidence: low

↑ 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.

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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events