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

Showing 451–475 of 932 studies published 2026 · free to read (page 19 of 38) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

Vascular cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) encompasses a heterogeneous group of disorders in which cerebrovascular pathology contributes to cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The purpose of this narrative review is to examine women's cognitive health and to highlight its association with four major pillars: (1) aging, (2) estrogen decline and loss, (3) diet, and (4) neuroinflammation, and their contribution to cognitive decline, with a focus on this combination to increase awareness and address the progression and potential amelioration of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Hippocampal pan-histone H3 crotonylation (H3Kcr) and H3K18cr were significantly upregulated in both 5xFAD and Aβ42-injected mice compared to controls. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Obesity and its associated metabolic disturbances increase the risk of cognitive decline, dementia, and anxiety-related disorders. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Mediterranean diet, rich in plant-based foods, olive oil, and fish, has been consistently associated with slower cognitive decline and reduced risk of neurodegeneration in observational studies and some clinical trials. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

AWVs were associated with reduced risks for falls (HR: 0.976 for 2 AWVs; 0.936 for ≥3 AWVs) and fractures (HR: 0.978 for 1 AWV; 0.960 for 2 AWVs; 0.927 for ≥3 AWVs), with greater reductions observed with more AVWs. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Misconceptions were common: 38% of participants equated ACP exclusively with decisions to forgo active treatment, and many conflated ACP with current rather than future-oriented care planning. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

ACP is linked to lower EOL spending and a shift from inpatient to outpatient ADRD care; structured ACP delivery should be considered. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Individual biomarkers significantly predict decline across multiple cognitive domains. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Plasma Aβ levels and regional WMH burden are associated with glymphatic dysfunction as indicated by reduced ALPS. 3 key findings →

Participants: 216 Evidence: low

Concurrent diarrhea and wasting (DW) among children aged 6–24 months represents a critical public health threat in East Africa, exacerbating infection susceptibility, stunting, cognitive impairment, and mortality. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,402 Evidence: low

Apoptosis, a programmed cell death process activated in Alzheimer disease (AD), is not limited to neurons but extends to all cell types within the central nervous system (CNS). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neurodegeneration status was correctly identified in 78.8% (119/151) of amyloid-negative patients through visual rating, compared to 67.5% (102/151) using logistic regression. 5 key findings →

Participants: 379 Evidence: low

In older adults, temporal [18F]PI-2620 binding was higher in women (β = 0.543, P < 0.001) and APOE4 carriers (β = 0.395, P = 0.030) and was positively associated with plasma p-tau217 (β = 0.22, P = 0.008). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Identity-by-descent (IBD) mapping provides complementary signals to genome-wide association studies (GWASs) when multiple causal haplotypes or variants are present but not directly tested. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

BackgroundCholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) are cornerstones of the symptomatic treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and are also prescribed for vascular dementia (VaD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

SCD participants were older, had fewer years of education, more depressive symptoms, and more subjective cognitive complaints than CU participants. 4 key findings →

Participants: 315 Evidence: low

Rationale and design of a multidomain lifestyle program for mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2026-01-01

The development of non-pharmacological treatment approaches is supported by evidence that addressing key modifiable risk factors may prevent or delay up to 45% of dementia cases. 5 key findings →

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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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    Where this research is being discussed: events