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.

TrustPGS: When can a polygenic score be trusted? A per-individual reliability framework across ancestries

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. bioRxiv 2026-07-07

Polygenic scores summarise genetic predisposition to a trait, but a population-level accuracy figure cannot tell a clinician whether a given prediction is reliable for the person in front of them. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Greater diversity of social participation was associated with better long-term cognitive maintenance among older adults with hypertension and/or diabetes. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 547 Evidence: moderate

Mobile Clinics for Brain Health Equity: A Feasibility Study of Dementia Risk Reduction in Underserved Communities

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-30

Recruitment (88.0%) and protocol fidelity (100%) met or exceeded prespecified progression criteria, whereas retention and follow-up data availability were 59.1% (13/22), slightly below the predefined 60% criterion. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Subacute and Chronic Cognitive and Cerebrovascular Functional Consequences of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Rats

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. bioRxiv 2026-07-27

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the main cause of death and disability in the United States in people younger than 35 years old and is a common cause of wartime injuries. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Multidomain lifestyle interventions for the risk reduction of cognitive impairment and dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-07-15

Multidomain interventions have small but consistent beneficial effects on cognitive measures, suggesting the potential to reduce cognitive impairment and dementia risk. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 23,209 Evidence: high

Association Between Combined Multiple Behaviors and Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: A 10-Year Cohort Study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.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

Of total 8,321 participants, 24.88% (2,070) developed cognitive impairment during a 10-year follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 8,321 Evidence: moderate

Synergistic Interactions of Midlife Multimorbidity on Dementia: A Stratified Analysis by Neuropsychiatric Subtypes

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-07-29

Specific disease clusters involving diabetes, oral disease, sensory impairment, and osteoporosis were associated with suspected dementia and neuropsychiatric heterogeneity, supporting integrated multimorbidity-oriented screening and care. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,597 Evidence: low

Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are associated with increased risk of neurodegenerative disease, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD); however, the mechanisms by which TBI promotes AD pathogenesis remain poorly understood. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Interacting Role of Social Determinants of Health and Hearing Loss on Cognitive Decline: An ACTIVE Longitudinal Study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-10-20

These findings indicate that the cognitive impact of hearing loss depends on structural resources, highlighting the need to integrate sensory health and social context in dementia prevention efforts. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,397 Evidence: low

Modifiable Risk Factors for Dementia across the Europe: regional comparative studyusing SHARE data

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-04

Our findings reveal marked geographic variation in dementia risk factors, highlighting the need for region-specific prevention strategies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 40,000 Evidence: low

All Big Five domains had prospective associations with multiple dementia risk factors and with cognitive impairment, cognitive function, and self-reported memory. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Age-Related Speech-in-Noise Hearing Loss in Parkinson’s Disease and APOE E4 Carriers

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-06-09

Age-related hearing loss is a leading modifiable risk factor for dementia and is increasingly recognized as a non-motor feature of Parkinson’s disease (PD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer disease β-amyloid pathology accelerates age-related hearing loss: evidence from App NL-F “knock-in” mice

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. bioRxiv 2026-05-28

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a main acquired risk factor for dementia, including Alzheimer disease (AD), but links are unknown. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Multi-site MRI analysis of morphometric differences in brain regions in the presence of hearing loss and tinnitus across the adult lifespan

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. bioRxiv 2026-03-10

The impact of age and hearing loss on the brain has garnered significant attention, as both factors have been implicated in the development of cognitive impairment or dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: low

Absolute BPV was associated with mortality, and DBP and MAP variability with overall stroke, after accounting for glycemic status and mean blood pressure. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 57,611 Evidence: moderate

Seasonally Normalized Vitamin D Status and Long-Term Mortality and Multisystem Disease Risk in the UK Biobank

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-10-09

Seasonally normalized 25(OH)D identifies a reproducible state of systemic vulnerability while reducing exposure misclassification caused by calendar timing of measurement. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 412,020 Evidence: moderate

Beyond Usual Pace: Quick Walking Speed and Brain Health Outcomes in the Framingham Heart Study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-10-15

We estimated associations per SD slower walking or smaller adaptability using linear, logistic, and Cox regression (10-year follow-up), overall and in women and men. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,308 Evidence: moderate

Newly diagnosed postoperative depression and incident dementia after major surgery: a Korean nationwide retrospective cohort study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-30

Newly diagnosed postoperative depression was associated with increased dementia risk, particularly in patients aged < 65 years, supporting prospective evaluation as a potential marker of long-term cognitive risk. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 424,637 Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

10 of the 3,247 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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