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.

Having a LOC HI aged 50's and younger was linked with lower later-life cognitive function at age ~70 than expected. 2 key findings →

Participants: 502 Evidence: moderate

This study found that in preclinical AD, overweight and obesity were associated with better verbal memory in women, whereas obesity was associated with worse global cognition among men. 4 key findings →

Participants: 387 Evidence: low

Both apolipoprotein E (apoE) and 24(S)-hydroxycholesterol are involved in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Late-onset Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Continuum (Minneapolis, Minn.) 2019-02-01

Vascular risk factors, sleep disorders, and traumatic brain injury are associated with an increased risk of AD, while increased cognitive and physical activity throughout the lifespan reduce the risk of disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The relationship between obesity and cognitive health and decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 2017-09-11

The relationship between obesity and cognitive impairment is important given the globally ageing population in whom cognitive decline and neurodegenerative disorders will carry grave individual, societal and financial burdens. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cardiovascular risk factors and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The American journal of geriatric pharmacotherapy 2008-06-01

From a clinical perspective, these data further support the rationale for physicians to provide effective management of CVD risk factors and for patients to be compliant with such recommendations to possibly prevent cognitive decline/dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

Poor diet and obesity are associated with cognitive impairment throughout adulthood, and increased dementia risk in aging. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Differential central pathology and cognitive impairment in pre-diabetic and diabetic mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2013-06-21

Although age remains the main risk factor to suffer Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD), type 2 diabetes (T2D) has turned up as a relevant risk factor for dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dementia is an important cause of morbidity in the geriatric population in this community, where families take responsibility for the care of relatives with dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 2,067 Evidence: low

These results suggest that mechanisms leading to atherosclerosis might also lead to an increased number of perivascular spaces. 5 key findings →

Participants: 706 Evidence: low

Identifying incident dementia by applying machine learning to a very large administrative claims dataset

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. PloS one 2019-07-05

Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) are highly prevalent conditions, and prior efforts to develop predictive models have relied on demographic and clinical risk factors using traditional logistical regression methods. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Occupational noise exposure accounts for approximately 16% of all disabling hearing losses, but the true value and societal costs may be grossly underestimated because current regulations only identify hearing impairments in the workplace if exposures result in audiometric threshold shifts within a limited frequency region. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Their Health Benefits

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Annual review of food science and technology 2018-03-01

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) include α-linolenic acid (ALA; 18:3 ω-3), stearidonic acid (SDA; 18:4 ω-3), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; 20:5 ω-3), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA; 22:5 ω-3), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6 ω-3). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Obesity significantly increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke, fatty liver disease, dementia, obstructive sleep apnea and several types of cancer. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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