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.

The study aim is to investigate whether blood biomarkers (BBMs) of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology are associated with postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) after cardiac surgery. 4 key findings →

Participants: 394 Evidence: low

Cardiovascular disease risk factors begin in childhood and track into adulthood, increasing the possibility of impaired cardiometabolic health. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Association of hearing loss to brain structure and cognition in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Midlife hearing loss was associated with smaller brain volumes, accelerated decline in executive function, accelerated accrual of white matter abnormalities, and a near doubling of dementia risk, suggesting a potential causal or biomarker role for midlife hearing loss in the prevention of late‐life dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,656 Evidence: low

In 3413 participants (mean age: 59 ± 14 years, 53.4% women), 11% had prevalent CVD or AF, 8% had prevalent CVD, and 4% had prevalent AF. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,413 Evidence: moderate

Accumulating studies suggest that overnutrition-associated obesity may lead to development of type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndromes (MetS). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study found that in preclinical AD, overweight and obesity were associated with better verbal memory in women, whereas obesity was associated with worse global cognition among men. 4 key findings →

Participants: 387 Evidence: low

Differential central pathology and cognitive impairment in pre-diabetic and diabetic mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2013-06-21

Although age remains the main risk factor to suffer Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD), type 2 diabetes (T2D) has turned up as a relevant risk factor for dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

T2DM is one of the strong risk factors of ADRD but genetic T2DM effect does not contribute to ADRD risk. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Under-reporting of cardiovascular events in the rofecoxib Alzheimer disease studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. American heart journal 2012-07-03

In the 3 studies combined, the data indicated that rofecoxib more than tripled the risk of confirmed CVT death (risk ratio = 3.57 [1.48-9.72], P = .004). 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Polygenic Risk Scores for Incident Dementia in the Multi‐Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Genetic Epidemiology 2026-06-23

We found comparable associations between dementia and PRS when comparing a C+T method with only 15 SNPs and PRS derived from Bayesian models that include > 800,000 SNPs (HR 5e‐08 = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.08–1.28; HR CSx = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07−1.27). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Participants in the highest versus lowest MedDiet and MIND categories had 21% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.84) and 14% (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.91) lower dementia risk, respectively. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A total of 2301 patients completed an intake from January 2023 to March 2024. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,301 Evidence: low

Diet and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. JACC CardioOncology 2025-08-29

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer remain the leading causes of mortality in the United States, where poor diet has surpassed smoking as the leading risk factor for death, and life expectancy has hit a plateau as CVD mortality has stagnated over the past decade. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a neurodegenerative tauopathy associated with repetitive head impact (RHI) exposure. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The AD PRS was associated with AD in the ADSP sample, with odds ratios per standard deviation ranging from 1.14 to 1.52 across ancestry groups and robust validation in independent cohorts (Figure 1). 5 key findings →

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. 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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.

1,045 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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

Last updated