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.

Brain tissue volumes in relation to cognitive function and risk of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2008-05-23

We investigated in a population-based cohort study the association of global and lobar brain tissue volumes with specific cognitive domains and risk of dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 490 Evidence: moderate

Elevated midlife blood pressures, and the resulting increased white matter hyperintensities, increase the risk for MCI in a group of community-dwelling older men to at least the same degree as apolipoprotein E4 genotype. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Homocysteine, white matter hyperintensities, and cognition in healthy elderly people

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2003-02-01

Hyperhomocysteinemia is associated with an increased risk of vascular disease, and recent results suggest that it also could increase the risk of dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,241 Evidence: moderate

Clinical determinants of dementia related to stroke

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 1993-06-01

Among 251 patients examined 3 months after the onset of acute ischemic stroke, we diagnosed dementia in 66 (26.3%) by using modified DSM-III-R criteria based on neuropsychological, neurological, functional, and psychiatric examinations. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 251 Evidence: low

Use of metformin, DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 analogs and SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with lower risk of dementia in patients with diabetes. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 250 Evidence: moderate

Depression as a risk factor for Alzheimer disease: the MIRAGE Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2003-05-01

Depression symptoms before the onset of AD are associated with the development of AD, even in families where first depression symptoms occurred more than 25 years before the onset of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 1,953 Evidence: moderate

An increased incidence of mild cognitive impairment was observed in community-dwelling elderly adults who had nonpsychotic psychiatric symptoms at baseline. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 365 Evidence: moderate

ACAD's traction indicates the feasibility of recruiting Asians for clinical research to enhance understanding of AD risk factors. 1 key finding →

Participants: 606 Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular Health and Biomarkers of Neurodegenerative Disease in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA network open 2025-03-03

These findings suggest that promoting CVH in older adults may help alleviate the burden of neurodegenerative diseases, particularly among Black adults, who are known to experience a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,018 Evidence: moderate

Plasma levels of apolipoprotein E and risk of dementia in the general population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2015-01-13

Low plasma levels of apoE are associated with increased risk of future Alzheimer disease and all dementia in the general population, independent of ε2/ε3/ε4 APOE genotype. 3 key findings →

Participants: 75,708 Evidence: low

Individuals with AD and VaD have higher Hct levels than controls; however, a causal relationship between high-Hct level and risk of developing dementia is not supported. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,122 Evidence: high

Lipid-lowering agent use was associated with a lower risk of dementia, and specifically of Alzheimer disease, in those younger than 80 years. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 492 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