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.

Post-infection cognitive impairments in a cohort of elderly patients with COVID-19

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Molecular neurodegeneration 2021-07-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with an increased risk of long-term cognitive decline in elderly population. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,539 Evidence: moderate

Forty-two case-control, cohort, and randomized trials were identified and included in the review. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Men are at higher risk of postoperative delirium after hip fracture repair than women and have more postoperative surgical complications. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 431 Evidence: moderate

SSD in older people may be a frequent and clinically important condition that falls on a continuum between no symptoms and full delirium. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) is a major cause of stroke and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Retinal vessel diameters and cerebral small vessel disease: the Rotterdam Scan Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2005-11-29

The direct visualization of retinal vessels provides a unique opportunity to study cerebral small vessel disease, because these vessels share many features. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 490 Evidence: moderate

Depression and vascular disease: what is the relationship?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of affective disorders 2004-04-01

We investigated the nature of the relationship between depression and vascular diseases by reviewing epidemiological, clinical, neuroimaging and neuropathology studies which have reported on the relationship of depression to coronary artery disease, stroke disease, alterations in blood pressure, vascular dementia, diabetes mellitus and cholesterol levels and by reviewing potential mechanisms by which depression could be associated with vascular diseases. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Atherosclerosis of the intracranial arteries is an independent and important risk factor for dementia, suggesting potentially reversible pathways unrelated to Alzheimer pathology and stroke through which vascular changes may influence dementia risk. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 200 Evidence: moderate

It is associated with metabolic syndrome, incident diabetes, carotid atherosclerosis, and endothelial dysfunction, conditions that in turn are strongly linked with brain damage and cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 766 Evidence: moderate

Genetic variation in sulfonylurea targets was associated with a lower risk of AD, and future studies are warranted to clarify the underlying mechanistic pathways between sulfonylureas and AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 326,885 Evidence: low

Meta-analysis of modifiable risk factors for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2015-08-20

Effective interventions in diet, medications, biochemical exposures, psychological condition, pre-existing disease and lifestyle may decrease new incidence of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Strong conclusions remain elusive, although the weight of the evidence suggests an adverse association between PM2.5 and cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Greater purpose in life is associated with a reduced risk of AD and MCI in community-dwelling older persons. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 951 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