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 role of atrial fibrillation in cognitive impairment and dementia, independent of stroke, is uncertain. 4 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 31,506 Evidence: high

Prognosis of Parkinson disease: risk of dementia and mortality: the Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2005-08-01

Most prognostic studies on Parkinson disease have been hospital based or have applied register-based case-finding methods. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,969 Evidence: moderate

Identifying brain regions associated with risk factors for dementia could guide mechanistic understanding of risk factors associated with Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 8,312 Evidence: low

Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased risks of cognitive dysfunction and brain abnormalities. 4 key findings →

Participants: 10,663 Evidence: low

Incident Hearing Loss and Comorbidity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery 2018-11-12

After cohort matching, 48% of participants were women (n = 74 464), 61% were white (n = 93 442), and 31% (n = 48 056) were Medicare Advantage insured, with a mean (SD) age of 64 (10) years. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 154 Evidence: moderate

In SURMOUNT-5, treatment with tirzepatide was associated with greater predicted 10-year CVD risk reduction compared with semaglutide. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Among the 11 risk factors, educational attainment has the greatest impact on dementia risk and cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 30,113 Evidence: moderate

The 2,641 participants had a mean (SD) age of 74 (2.8) years at baseline; 53 % were female, 36 % were of Black race, and had a range of baseline CKM: 3 % Stage 0 (no CKM), 4 % Stage 1 (excess/dysfunctional adiposity), 26 % Stage 2 (metabolic risk factors), 24 % Stage 3 (subclinical CVD and CKD), and 43 % Stage 4 (clinical CVD and CKD). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,075 Evidence: moderate

Association of zinc deficiency and risk of new-onset dementia: a retrospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Frontiers in Nutrition 2025-11-04

Zinc deficiency represents an independent, modifiable risk factor for new-onset dementia with a clear dose-response relationship. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 34,249 Evidence: high

The incidence of the first episode of delirium after hip surgery in the elderly was 1.87 events per 1000 PYs. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 118,682 Evidence: moderate

The Dementia SomaSignal Test (dSST): A plasma proteomic predictor of 20‐year dementia risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-02-01

In addition to outperforming existing plasma biomarkers, the dSST predicted mid-life dementia risk over a 20-year follow-up across two independent cohorts with different ethnic backgrounds (areas under the curve [AUCs]: dSST 0.68-0.70, dSST+age 0.75-0.81). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 11,277 Evidence: moderate

BackgroundAccurate and accessible risk assessment tools are essential for effective dementia management. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27,768 Evidence: moderate

We identified a total of 1,686,759 patients with incident dementia (mean (SD) age, 82.15 (6.90) years; 61.70% female) and 3,373,518 matched controls (mean (SD) age, 82.15 (6.90) years; 61.70% female). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,686,759 Evidence: moderate

In 2018, Carlos et al. [2] reviewed 21 studies from the SUN project that focused on the association between the MDP and several incident chronic diseases, concluding that high Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, weight gain, metabolic syndrome, depression, cognitive decline, and nephrolithiasis, and with a lower heart rate and mitigation of the effects of obesity on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes, and our results suggested that the Mediterranean diet may improve fertility. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 79 Evidence: moderate

Among all participants, 247 (11.7%) had IADL limitations at baseline, and 151 (7.1%) developed dementia during follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,118 Evidence: moderate

CogDrisk-ML outperformed CAIDE in the UK Biobank and Whitehall II cohorts; however, it provided similar C statistics in the ARIC dataset. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The telmisartan group had the lowest risk of all dementias (telmisartan vs NT-ARB: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60 to 1.01; telmisartan vs angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.94). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 39,665 Evidence: moderate

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) constitutes one of the strongest environmental risk factors for several progressive neurodegenerative disorders of cognitive impairment and dementia that are characterized by the pathological accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau (p-Tau). 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Senile dementia of the Alzheimer's type: an important risk factor for serious falls

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of gerontology 1987-07-01

In a longitudinal study of senile dementia and healthy aging, the occurrence of serious falls was examined in participants with senile dementia of the Alzheimer's type (SDAT) (n = 44) and in cognitively healthy elderly control participants (n = 56) over a 4-year period. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 44 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