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.

Trends in Dementia Incidence in a Birth Cohort Analysis of the Einstein Aging Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-11-01

Poisson regression was used to model dementia incidence as a function of age, sex, educational level, race, and birth cohort, with profile likelihood used to identify the timing of significant increases or decreases in incidence. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,348 Evidence: moderate

Long-term exposure to PM 2.5 , NO 2 , and/or BC in Denmark were associated with mortality beyond cardiorespiratory diseases, including diabetes, dementia, psychiatric disorders, asthma, and ALRI. 5 key findings →

Participants: 803,881 Evidence: moderate

PIM use may be higher in dementia patients and their informal caregivers compared with the general older adult population. 5 key findings →

Participants: 566 Evidence: low

Systemic racism leads to racial/ethnic residential segregation, which can result in health inequities. 3 key findings →

Participants: 4,616 Evidence: low

Cardiovascular death in rheumatoid arthritis: a population-based study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Arthritis and rheumatism 2005-03-01

These results indicate that markers of systemic inflammation confer a statistically significant additional risk for cardiovascular death among patients with RA, even after controlling for traditional cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. 3 key findings →

Participants: 354 Evidence: moderate

Declines in heart disease and stroke mortality rates are conventionally attributed to reductions in cigarette smoking, recognition and treatment of hypertension and diabetes, effective medications to improve serum lipid levels and to reduce clot formation, and general lifestyle improvements. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Estrogen replacement therapy and risk of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Archives of internal medicine 1996-10-01

This study suggests that estrogen replacement therapy may be useful for preventing or delaying the onset of Alzheimer disease in postmenopausal women. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

In late middle age, cognitively normal subjects who are homozygous for the epsilon 4 allele for apolipoprotein E have reduced glucose metabolism in the same regions of the brain as in patients with probable Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Simvastatin is associated with a reduced incidence of dementia and Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. BMC medicine 2007-07-19

We observed that simvastatin is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of dementia in subjects > or =65 years, using any of three models. 5 key findings →

Participants: 700,000 Evidence: low

Accelerated progression from mild cognitive impairment to dementia in people with diabetes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Diabetes 2010-08-16

Diabetes and pre-diabetes substantially accelerate the progression from MCI to dementia, and anticipate dementia occurrence by more than 3 years in people with MCI. 3 key findings →

Participants: 302 Evidence: moderate

Identification of potentially modifiable risk factors for cognitive deterioration is important. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,607 Evidence: low

Blood pressure variability is an emerging risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, but mechanisms remain unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Unrecognized myocardial infarction in relation to risk of dementia and cerebral small vessel disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Stroke 2008-03-06

Men, but not women, with unrecognized myocardial infarction (MI) have an increased risk of cardiac events and stroke compared with those without MI or with recognized MI. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 613 Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular risk factors and cerebral atrophy in a middle-aged cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2005-09-01

Because cardiovascular (CV) risk factors have been associated with declines in cognitive functions and late life dementia, CV risk factors should also be associated with brain atrophy. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,812 Evidence: moderate

Identification of individuals at high risk of dementia is essential for development of prevention strategies, but reliable tools are lacking for risk stratification in the population. 4 key findings →

Participants: 181 Evidence: moderate

& objective Evidence is limited on how estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) relate to dementia at different ages. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,967 Evidence: moderate

Development and validation of a dementia risk score in the UK Biobank and Whitehall II cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. BMJ mental health 2023-07-01

Current dementia risk scores have had limited success in consistently identifying at-risk individuals across different ages and geographical locations. 4 key findings →

Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

9 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 9. The same 9 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