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 three year results of the LADIS study suggest that in older adults who seek medical attention for non-disabling complaints, severe age related changes in white matter independently and strongly predict rapid global functional decline. 3 key findings →

Participants: 633 Evidence: moderate

Since NOACs were introduced, there has been an increase in newly diagnosed patients with AF at risk of stroke receiving guideline-recommended therapy, predominantly driven by increased use of NOACs and reduced use of VKA±AP or AP alone. 2 key findings →

Participants: 5,500 Evidence: moderate

Hearing loss is independently associated with prevalent dementia and incident MCI or dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,515 Evidence: moderate

Previous reports have suggested that estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) in women may exert a protective effect on their risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high

Our findings raise concerns about potential effects of air pollution from traffic and other sources on the risk of PD, particularly in populations with high or increasing exposures. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Our findings suggest that long-term use of BZDs is associated with an increased risk for dementia, but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear, and further investigations are needed. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 779 Evidence: moderate

BackgroundHearing loss is one of the most prominent modifiable risk factors for dementia, accounting for one of the largest population-attributable risk among midlife exposures according to the Lancet Commission on Dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 373 Evidence: low

Physical activity moderated the association between MTA and plasma Aβ42/40 level and increased dementia risk. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,044 Evidence: moderate

Interaction Between APOE Genotype and Diabetes in Longevity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2021

Diabetes was associated with shorter lifespan in APOE3 carriers (n = 12,415, HR = 1.29, 95%CI = 1.17-1.42, p < 0.001) and APOE2 carriers (n = 2,390, HR = 1.37, 95%CI = 1.10-1.69, p = 0.016), while such associations were weaker and not significant in APOE4 carriers (n = 9,490, HR = 1.11, 95%CI = 0.99-1.24, p = 0.162). 5 key findings →

Participants: 12,415 Evidence: low

Association of Visual, Hearing, and Dual Sensory Impairment With Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2022-06-14

Among 113,511 participants (mean age: 56.8 ± 8.09 years, female: 54.4%), a total number of 1,135 (1.00%) cases of incident dementia were identified during a median follow up period of 11.1 years [interquartile range (IQR): 10.9-11.4 years]. 4 key findings →

Participants: 500,000 Evidence: low

DSI was significantly associated with higher risk of all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.25-2.76) and Alzheimer's disease (HR = 2.12; 95% CI = 1.34-3.36). 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,051 Evidence: low

Linking Metabolic Syndrome to Neurodegeneration Mechanisms and Potential Treatments

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Molecular neurobiology 2025-04-24

The global rise in both metabolic syndrome (MetS) and neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), particularly dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) poses a growing health and socioeconomic burden. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

To investigate the correlation between hypertension development and the progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia in middle-aged and elderly people. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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