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.

Individuals aged 70 and above experiencing memory loss in Cochran and Parmer Counties had a statistically significant association with cognitive impairment (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Social Isolation as a Risk Factor for Dementia: Insights from Animal Model Studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Current Alzheimer Research 2025-03-01

Social isolation (SI) and loneliness (perceived social isolation) are considered as risk factors for developing dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), in the elderly population. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Researchers are focusing on modifiable risk factors for dementia, including sleep disturbances such as insomnia and sleep-disordered breathing (SDB), which are known to increase the risk of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Acute ischemic stroke often results in a multitude of neuropsychiatric complications, including depression, dementia, delirium, and fatigue. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cochlear Implants Now More Accessible to Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. The Hearing Journal 2022-12-17

Benefits Beyond Auditory Rehabilitation Research conducted by Frank Lin and colleagues found that individuals with untreated mild, moderate, and severe hearing loss had, respectively, a twofold, threefold, and fivefold increased risk of dementia compared with individuals with normal hearing. 4 Research suggests that early auditory rehabilitation is important for people of all ages, including older adults, as it can provide benefits and improvements beyond hearing ability such as cognitive function and mitigation of depression. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Parameters such as clinical status, GCA scale, MTA scale, Fazekas scale, strategic infarction, Koedam score, stroke, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease do not have significant correlations with MoCA-INA scores. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive training appears effective in improving cognitive functions and delaying cognitive decline in people at risk of Alzheimer's disease but requires more standardized research for conclusive evidence. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This paper examined the prevalence of and risk factors associated with unmet needs for activities of daily living (ADL) for older adults dying with dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Etiology, risk factors, treatments and current status of Alzheimer's disease in Mexico

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Gaceta medica de Mexico 2022-01-01

Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder whose etiology continues to be discussed, to the point that there are different hypotheses that seek to clarify it, in addition to the fact that, given its multifactorial nature, there are different risk factors associated with its development. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Various medicinal agents aimed at improving Alzheimer disease (AD) include cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, aducanumab, and antioxidants. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Discrimination, Stress, and Health Across the Life Course

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

These findings highlight the variability in the cumulative patterning of racial discrimination and stress among midlife and older Black adults, providing insights into how these factors impact health outcomes in middle to late life. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Small area estimates (SAEs) are increasingly used in public health to assess disease and health behavior prevalence rates at more local levels of geography, better informing public health decision-making and interventions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Food Priorities: Sociodemographic Variation in Constrained Choices at the Grocery Store

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 24 out of 100. Food Systems and Health 2017-07-13

The results of this study confirm that some sociodemographic groups are more likely to choose priorities that reflect contextual constraints in their lives than others. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Education and Alzheimer Disease Genetic Risk in Associations of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists With Dementia Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-09-08

We estimated associations of educational attainment and Alzheimer disease genetic risk with treatment initiation and incident dementia and compared GLP-1 receptor agonist initiators with initiators of non-sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor second-line therapies, with a separate sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor compa 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 14,364 Evidence: moderate

Promoting Healthy Aging: Public Health as a Leader for Reducing Dementia Risk

⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Public Policy & Aging Report 2023-07-15

It is estimated that for people aged 65 years and older, the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease was nearly double for women compared with men (Weinstein et al., 2012). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Genomics link obesity and type 2 diabetes to Alzheimers disease to unveil novel biological insights

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-17

Body mass index (BMI), type 2 diabetes (T2D) and related cardiometabolic features associate with Alzheimers disease (AD) risk, yet shared mechanisms remain poorly understood. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

MRI-derived brain aging trajectories across the Alzheimer's continuum: links to cognition, pathology and lifestyle risk factors

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-22

BackgroundThe brain age gap (BAG), the difference between neuroimaging-predicted and chronological age, captures inter-individual variation in brain aging. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 202 Evidence: moderate

AbstractO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSGlucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are increasingly used for type 2 diabetes. 5 key findings →

Participants: 6,328 Evidence: low

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