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.

Secondary analysis suggested that this effect may be driven primarily by individuals who are negative for the established AD genetic risk factor, apolipoprotein E (APOE) ɛ4. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 346 Evidence: moderate

Our pilot studies (National Institutes of Health [NIH] stage 1A) have shown that MHB is feasible, acceptable, and associated with improvement in lifestyle behavior and cognitive outcomes. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 225 Evidence: high

For the last 17 years, an increase of mortality for patients with hip fracture and a higher mortality rate in men than in women were observed. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,992 Evidence: moderate

At baseline, 4,463 subjects were without dementia, 836 of whom had HL. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,463 Evidence: moderate

These results confirm the absence of a neurocognitive risk associated with statin treatment and suggest a potential favourable role of statins. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

After adjusting for various risk factors, participants with low socioeconomic status (vs high) had increased risk for early-onset dementia (3·38, 2·61-4·37), and overall lifestyle mediated 3·2% (1·8-5·7) of the association. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 345 Evidence: moderate

We aimed to evaluate the criterion validity of the 2015 food-based Dutch dietary guidelines, which were formulated based on evidence on the relation between diet and major chronic diseases. 2 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 9,701 Evidence: moderate

More-severe diabetes (defined by higher HbA 1c and longer disease duration) but not prediabetes or less-severe diabetes was associated with smaller brain volumes and an increased burden of brain vascular pathology. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,713 Evidence: low

Behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia affect nearly all people with dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 587 Evidence: moderate

Two longitudinal studies with different populations demonstrated that loneliness was a risk factor for the development of the pain, depression, and fatigue symptom cluster over time. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 115 Evidence: moderate

Fifty-one studies from 16 States of India were included as 56 datasets, which estimated the prevalence of depression among Indian elderly population as 34.4% (95% CI: 29.3-39.7). 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Growing evidence suggests that fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) likely increases the risks of dementia, yet little is known about the relative contributions of different constituents. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Sleep Duration and White Matter Quality in Middle-Aged Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Sleep 2016-09-01

Study objectives Sleep duration has been associated with risk of dementia and stroke, but few studies have investigated the relationship between sleep duration and brain MRI measures, particularly in middle age. 3 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Evidence: moderate

The mean age was 70.9 years (standard deviation, 5.9), 57.2% were women, 40.6% were illiterate, and 88.3% were farmers. 2 key findings →

Participants: 5,765 Evidence: high

While dementia affects 6-10% of persons 65 years or older, industrialized countries have witnessed an alarming rise in obesity. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia in clinic- vs community-based cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2009-09-01

These findings add to the growing literature to suggest that the degree of functional impairment at baseline is an important predictor of conversion to dementia and may help explain differences in findings between epidemiological and clinic-based studies. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 28 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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