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.

The global metabolic disorder, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), significantly increases the risk of cognitive dysfunction, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 250,000 Evidence: high

The loss of occlusal support may lead to cognitive dysfunction through the reduction of chewing-related stimuli, aggravation of nerve damage, and long-term inflammatory stress. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,317 Evidence: high

Plasma MCP-1 and changes on cognitive function in community-dwelling older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2022-01-07

Baseline plasma MCP-1 levels were associated with longitudinal declines in overall cognitive and episodic memory performance in older adults over a 4-year follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,097 Evidence: moderate

These findings do not provide evidence of improvement in behavioral symptoms, functional status, or QoL of hearing impaired AD patients and their caregivers after 6 months of HA use. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet is associated with a lower risk for mortality, cognitive decline, and dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Dietary Patterns and Cognitive Health in Older Adults: A Systematic Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2019-01-01

While the role of diet and nutrition in cognitive health and prevention of dementia in older adults has attracted much attention, the efficacy of different dietary patterns remains uncertain. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: high

The Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study: study design and methods

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neuroepidemiology 2005-08-15

Linking the ADAMS dementia clinical assessment data to the wealth of available longitudinal HRS data on health, health care utilization, informal care, and economic resources and behavior, will provide a unique opportunity to study the onset of CIND and dementia in a nationally representative population-based sample, as well as the risk factors, prevalence, outcomes, and costs of CIND and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 856 Evidence: moderate

Physical activity attenuates age-related biomarker alterations in preclinical AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2014-10-08

In a middle-aged, at-risk cohort, a physically active lifestyle is associated with an attenuation of the deleterious influence of age on key biomarkers of AD pathophysiology. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 186 Evidence: high

Hypertension is related to cognitive impairment: a 20-year follow-up of 999 men

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) 1998-03-01

Recent findings of a linkage between high blood pressure (BP) and later development of dementia have given new prospects on cerebral target-organ damage in hypertension and have added substance to the concept of "preventable senility." 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate

Survival analyses indicated that subjects with the lowest EF scores were more likely to fall sooner and more likely to experience multiple falls during the 66 months of follow-up (p Conclusions/significance These findings demonstrate that among community-living older adults, the risk of future falls was predicted by performance on EF and attention tests conducted 5 years earlier. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Routine screening of cognition in older subjects with diabetes is recommended. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 396 Evidence: moderate

Among 1614 older adults (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [8.7] years; 980 women [60.7%]), 853 were Mexican American (mean [SD] age, 63.9 [7.9] years; 566 women [66.4%]), and 761 were non-Hispanic White (mean [SD] age, 69.1 [8.7] years; 414 women [54.4%]). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 280 Evidence: moderate

MIND Diet and Hippocampal Sclerosis Among Community-Based Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-08-07

Among 809 participants (mean [SD] age at death, 91.3 [6.1] years; 538 [72%] female; mean [SD] follow-up, 7.2 [4.4] years), HS was present in 82 (10.1%) participants; 71 participants (9%) had both HS and LATE-NC, and in the scored subset, 43 participants (14%) had moderate and 35 participants (12%) had severe hippocampal neuronal loss. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 300 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

From across this tag

10 of the 1,130 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 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