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.

Observational studies support the use of NSAIDs for prevention of AD, but RCT do not. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Diet and risk of dementia: Does fat matter?: The Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2002-12-01

High intake of total, saturated, and trans fat and cholesterol and low intake of MUFA, PUFA, n-6 PUFA, and n-3 PUFA were not associated with increased risk of dementia or its subtypes. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,395 Evidence: moderate

Stroke, dementia, and hypertension are associated with late-onset epilepsy; however, the role of other vascular and lifestyle factors remains unclear. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 792 Evidence: moderate

Broad consensus emerged on the protective role against dementia of leisure activities. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 26 Evidence: high

Scope it has been suggested that overweight/obesity as a risk factor for incident dementia differs between mid-life and later life. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

DLB currently accounts for around one in 25 dementia cases diagnosed in the community and one in 13 cases in secondary care. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Incidence of dementia is nearly 50 times higher in the year after a major stroke compared with that in the general population, but excess risk is substantially lower after transient ischaemic attack and minor stroke. 1 key finding →

Participants: 728 Evidence: low

Population-based estimates for the epidemiology of FTD varied widely in the included studies. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,000 Evidence: low

DLB becomes more common with increasing age and accounts for about 5% of all dementia cases in older populations. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,000 Evidence: low

The metabolic syndrome, inflammation, and risk of cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA 2004-11-01

These findings support the hypothesis that the metabolic syndrome contributes to cognitive impairment in elders, but primarily in those with high level of inflammation. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,616 Evidence: low

Psychotic symptoms are common and persistent in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,749 Evidence: moderate

Older adults with diabetes and dementia are at increased risk for hypoglycemia and other adverse events associated with tight glycemic control and are unlikely to experience long-term benefits. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 15,880 Evidence: moderate

We found no evidence to support the theory that natural variation in cumulative exposure to endogenous oestrogens across the reproductive period influences dementia incidence in late life. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Older, healthy women with decreased circadian activity rhythm amplitude and robustness, and delayed rhythms have increased odds of developing dementia and MCI. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Angiotensin receptor blockers are associated with a significant reduction in the incidence and progression of Alzheimer's disease and dementia compared with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or other cardiovascular drugs in a predominantly male population. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Evidence: moderate

Vascular risk factors, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obesity and dyslipidaemia often co-occur. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate

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