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 non-linear function indicates that a higher dose is not necessarily better in multidomain interventions. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 749 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

Association of incident dementia with hospitalizations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA 2012-01-01

Four hundred ninety-four individuals eventually developed dementia and 427 (86%) of these persons were admitted at least once; 2525 remained free of dementia and 1478 (59%) of those were admitted at least once. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,019 Evidence: moderate

Prospective study of alcohol consumption and risk of dementia in older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA 2003-03-01

Compared with abstention, consumption of 1 to 6 drinks weekly is associated with a lower risk of incident dementia among older adults. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,888 Evidence: moderate

Recruitment ended in December 2014 with 16,703 Australian and 2,411 U.S. participants, a median age of 74 (range 65-98) years and 56% women. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

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

Long-term health benefits of physical activity--a systematic review of longitudinal studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. BMC public health 2013-09-08

This review revealed a paucity of long-term studies on the relationship between physical activity and the incidence of NCD. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 288,724 Evidence: moderate

Parkinson risk in idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder: preparing for neuroprotective trials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Neurology 2015-02-13

Using stratification with simply assessed markers, it is now not only possible, but practical to include patients with RBD in neuroprotective trials against Parkinson disease, multiple system atrophy, and dementia with Lewy bodies. 3 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 89 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

Our study provides evidence that a Mediterranean diet supplemented with dairy foods may benefit cognitive function and psychological well-being in an ageing population at risk of dementia. 2 key findings →

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

Thirteen significant risk factors were identified: age, male gender, lung diseases, dysphagia, diabetes mellitus, severe dementia, angiotensin I-converting enzyme deletion/deletion genotype, bad oral health, malnutrition, Parkinson's disease, and the use of antipsychotic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 21 Evidence: high

Our study found that midlife stage 1 and stage 2 systolic hypertension is associated with increased risk of AD by 18 and 25%, respectively, although no association was found for diastolic hypertension. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

From across this tag

10 of the 3,281 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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