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.

RO emphasised the engagement of nursing assistants in a hopeful, therapeutic process but became associated with a rigid, confrontational approach to people with dementia, leading to its use becoming less and less common. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 718 Evidence: high

Where appropriate, we undertook subgroup analysis by modality (individual versus group), number of sessions and frequency, setting (community versus care home), type of control condition and dementia severity. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 37 Evidence: high

A recent Cochrane review of reality orientation therapy identified the need for large, well-designed, multi-centre trials. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 201 Evidence: high

The number of years of formal education completed by individuals is positively correlated with their cognitive function throughout adulthood and predicts lower risk of dementia late in life. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is a well-established group psychosocial intervention for people with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

There were 987 participants (290 from Vantaa 85+, 241 from the Cambridge City Over-75s Cohort, and 456 from the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study) with neuropathologic data; mean (SD) age at death was 90 (6.4) years, including 682 women (69%). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 987 Evidence: moderate

The potential determinants of cognitive decline identified in this study, in particular modifiable risk factors, should be tested in the context of randomised controlled trials. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 626 Evidence: high

Cognitive decline and dementia incidence have also been consistently associated with exposure to air pollution. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Our findings suggest that decreasing disparities between sexes in education, due to secular increases in educational opportunities, could attenuate sex differences in dementia risk and cognitive decline in the future. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 924 Evidence: moderate

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

Among 137 randomized participants, 2 were excluded for not meeting eligibility criteria, leaving 135 (mean [SD] age, 69.3 [3.8] years; 83 female [61%]) eligible for analysis. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Memory problems are a defining feature of the early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Digital literacy may help reduce cognitive decline among persons aged between 50 and 89 years. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,442 Evidence: moderate

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

A total of 346 of 374 (92.5%) intervention arm participants received some intervention (reach), and 305 of 374 (81.6%) attended ≥5 main sessions (predefined as adhering: dose). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 346 Evidence: high

14 IPD-Work studies were assessed and six studies were excluded due to missing outcome data and unavailable data for pooling, resulting in the inclusion of eight studies with 124 909 participants. 5 key findings →

Participants: 909 Evidence: low

In total, 41 participants consented (n=10, 24% participants with Alzheimer disease; n=11, 27% participants with Lewy body disease; and n=20, 49% controls). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 41 Evidence: moderate

Whole-brain atrophy rate and cognitive decline: longitudinal MR study of memory clinic patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Radiology 2008-06-23

Baseline brain volume was lowest in AD but did not differ significantly between MCI, subjective complaints, and control groups (P > .38). 3 key findings →

Participants: 65 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. 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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