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 findings suggest that risk factors associated with ADRDs have changed over the past decade and differ based on sex and race and ethnicity. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 378 Evidence: high

A nurse-led, multidomain intervention did not result in a reduced incidence of all-cause dementia in an unselected population of older people. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 3,526 Evidence: high

The Mediterranean-Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet seems a promising approach to preserve brain function during aging. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 40 Evidence: high

The CAIDE (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia) Risk Score is a validated tool estimating dementia risk. 4 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 112 Evidence: high

Low cognitive and brain reserve and limited cognitive stimulation are associated with increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 6,742 Evidence: high

Western diet is associated with a smaller hippocampus: a longitudinal investigation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. BMC medicine 2015-09-08

Lower intakes of nutrient-dense foods and higher intakes of unhealthy foods are each independently associated with smaller left hippocampal volume. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 255 Evidence: high

WMH were associated with increased risk of cognitive dysfunction and could become a neuroimaging indicator of dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 19,040 Evidence: high

White matter hyperintensities are associated with an increased risk of all-dementia and Alzheimer's disease in the general population. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,913 Evidence: high

Newer GLDs were associated with a decreased risk of all-cause dementia in people with T2D. Because of the observational nature and significant heterogeneity between studies, the results should be interpreted with caution. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 819,511 Evidence: high

We developed an endophenotype disease module-based methodology for Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug repurposing and identified sildenafil as a potential disease risk modifier. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: high

UK Biobank: opportunities for cardiovascular research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. European Heart Journal 2017-04-24

The need for large sample sizes has led to collaborative efforts, such as the Prospective Studies Collaboration (an individual participant meta-analysis of data from 61 studies and more than a million participants11) that has demonstrated conclusively that a continuous increase in blood pressure corresponds with an increased risk of vascular death across all age groups (see Figure 1 that illustrates the importance of a large sample size (about 500 000 participants) for detecting this association).12 Sample size is also of particular importance in the current era of genome-wide association studies, where many investigations are aiming to detect either small effects from common variants or large effects from rare variants.13 Absolute risk of ischaemic heart disease mortality by usual systolic blood pressure and age at risk in 5000, 50 000, and 500 000 participants. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,200 Evidence: high

Association of Lifestyle and Genetic Risk With Incidence of Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. JAMA 2019-08-01

Among older adults without cognitive impairment or dementia, both an unfavorable lifestyle and high genetic risk were significantly associated with higher dementia risk. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 383 Evidence: moderate

An intervention with MedDiets enhanced with either EVOO or nuts appears to improve cognition compared with a low-fat diet. 5 key findings →

Participants: 522 Evidence: high

Association of Dual Decline in Cognition and Gait Speed With Risk of Dementia in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. JAMA network open 2022-05-02

Of 19 114 randomized participants, 16 855 (88.2%) had longitudinal gait and cognitive data for inclusion in this study (mean [SD] age, 75.0 [4.4] years; 9435 women [56.0%], 7558 participants [44.8%] with 12 or more years of education). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 7,558 Evidence: high

Our findings suggest that higher adherence to the MIND diet was associated with better cognitive function and potentially slower cognitive decline in later life. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,066 Evidence: high

Greater MIND diet adherence was associated with decreased risk of cognitive impairment in female participants but not male participants, with no difference between Black participants and White participants. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 14,145 Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

10 of the 3,259 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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