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.

Among individuals with mild cognitive impairment, no vision impairment (VI) and corrected VI were associated with a lower risk of dementia than uncorrected VI, particularly among those aged < 75 years. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Cardiovascular risk factors contribute to the majority of dementia cases, with about 20% directly attributable to vascular cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Diabetes, elevated fasting glucose, central obesity, and heart age greater than chronological age were associated with rate of decline in processing speed during midlife. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

An interquartile range increase in 20-year PM2.5 was associated with a 20% higher risk of dementia (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5%, 37%) and an increased risk of mixed VaD/AD but not AD alone. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) from a closed-head injury (CHI) can lead to prevalent neuropsychiatric disorders, including mood disorders and an increased risk for neurodegenerative diseases and dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Disparities in incidence of NDD between Black and White beneficiaries narrowed by 0.37 per 100 person-years from 2014 to 2017. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Of 439,760 HCV patients, the incidence rate of ADRD was higher in patients with periodontal diseases compared to those without (10.84% versus 9.26%, p < 0.001), and those with periodontal disease developed ADRD earlier compared to those without periodontal disease (13.99 versus 21.60 months, p < 0.001). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are a promising tool that may help in early diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

These findings suggest that a capsaicin-rich diet may exert favorable effects on AD blood biomarkers and cognitive function in middle-aged and elderly adults. 3 key findings →

Participants: 338 Evidence: low

GFAP positivity in neurons following traumatic brain injuries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. International journal of legal medicine 2021-06-11

Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is a well-established astrocytic biomarker for the diagnosis, monitoring and outcome prediction of traumatic brain injury (TBI). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Under-reporting of cardiovascular events in the rofecoxib Alzheimer disease studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. American heart journal 2012-07-03

In the 3 studies combined, the data indicated that rofecoxib more than tripled the risk of confirmed CVT death (risk ratio = 3.57 [1.48-9.72], P = .004). 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Cardiovascular risk factors and lifestyle factors are associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia in observational studies, and have been targeted by multidomain interventions. 5 key findings →

Participants: 4,162 Evidence: low

After its completion in 2028, the EARHLI trial should offer evidence on the effect of hearing treatment versus a health education control on cognitive performance, social engagement, and brain organization/connectivity in 55- to 75-year-old community-dwelling adults with early ARHL and amnestic mild cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Diabetic insulin resistance and pro-diabetic diet are reported to increase dementia risk through unknown mechanisms. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Nutrition and risk of dementia: overview and methodological issues

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2016-03-01

After two decades of research on nutrition and dementia there is strong evidence for preventive effects of vitamin E, B vitamins, and n-3 fatty acids and deleterious effects of saturated fat on dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

High dietary cholesterol and low dietary docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) intake are risk factors for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Risk factors for the progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Clinics in geriatric medicine 2013-11-01

The increasing prevalence of cognitive impairment among the older adult population warrants attention to the identification of practices that may minimize the progression of early forms of cognitive impairment, including the transitional stage of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), to permanent stages of dementia. 3 key findings →

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