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.

Little is known on how risk factors of younger cohorts will play out in the future burden of multi-morbidity (two or more concurrent long-term conditions). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 303,589 Evidence: moderate

Association between vaccinations and risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2025-10-30

Adult vaccinations, particularly against herpes zoster, influenza, pneumococcus and Tdap, are associated with a lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 104,031,186 Evidence: moderate

The incidence and prevalence of delirium in hospitals appears to be stable, though publication bias may have masked true changes. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

From October 2018 to March 2020, 58 participants were recruited (29 per group, 95% [86%-99%]). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 58 Evidence: high

One million nine hundred twenty-five thousand, five hundred sixty-three individuals were included across the four databases with a median follow-up ranging from 5.6 to 8.4 years. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

APPLE-Tree has a high probability of being cost-effective for a 1-point NTB gain, a difference previously associated with a three-fold reduction in 5-year dementia risk. 3 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 746 Evidence: moderate

In this large multicentre and long-term population-based study, some well-known risk factors for dementia, of vascular and Alzheimer's type, are confirmed but not others. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,075 Evidence: moderate

However, in many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) there is a lack of evaluation and the cross-cultural validity of SRH remains largely untested. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 16,940 Evidence: moderate

Attendance was good (82.8% attended ≥4/6 sessions). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Higher cognitive reserve was associated with better cognition, fewer functional difficulties, more physical activity and better quality of life at baseline but was associated with accelerated cognitive decline and greater dependence over time. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,537 Evidence: moderate

Between October 2021 and June 2022, 53 candidates were assessed; 29 met eligibility criteria and were randomised. 5 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 29 Evidence: preliminary

One hundred sixteen participants consented and 93 (46 waitlist control, 47 intervention) were included in the analyses. 3 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 93 Evidence: null result

Such complex needs require an integrated response from general health professionals and multidisciplinary dementia specialists. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 291,169 Evidence: low

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

In this real-life crossover study, THC/CBD oil did not show superiority over placebo in reducing agitation in severe dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 25 Evidence: null result

Vitality was associated with disability primarily through the mediation of other IC domains. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,389 Evidence: moderate

Delirium: more than a marker of baseline vulnerability

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2026-05-01

Across several cohorts, delirium is emerging as an important prognostic signal, independent of chronic markers of baseline morbidity, that identifies patients at markedly increased risk of death or future dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,556 Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment: the Manchester consensus

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Age and ageing 2021-01-01

Given considerable variation in diagnostic and therapeutic practice, there is a need for national guidance on the use of neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers, cognitive testing, follow-up and diagnostic terminology in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

↑ 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.

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