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.

Study objective To describe a population that was categorized as "cognitively impaired not demented" (CIND) and to examine the utility of some of the proposed criteria for describing this degree of cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,914 Evidence: moderate

APOE ε4 and Accelerated Cognitive Decline Among Cognitively Healthy Middle-Aged and Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-03-06

Among 4392 participants (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [7.8] years; 2359 [53.7%] women), 723 (16.5%) were APOE ε4 heterozygotes and 33 (0.8%) were APOE ε4 homozygotes. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,392 Evidence: moderate

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

Among ACHIEVE participants in the top quartile of predicted risk, 3-year cognitive decline in the hearing intervention was 61.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.7%-94.1%) slower than the control. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,692 Evidence: moderate

A randomised controlled trial of physical activity and cognitive training in older adults: the PhABHeaD study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Trials 2026-05-07

If a substantial synergetic effect is detected, it may lead to the use of more widespread concurrent physical and cognitive training and the potential development of methods to make concurrent training practical. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 126 Evidence: high

The evidence of a preventive treatment effect aimed at vascular risk factors on cognitive decline and dementia in later life is scarce and mostly based on secondary outcome parameters. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Cognitive and sensory declines in old age: gauging the evidence for a common cause

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Psychology and aging 2009-03-01

Resource accounts of behavioral aging postulate that age-associated impairments within and across intellectual and sensory domains reflect, in part, a common set of senescent alterations in the neurochemistry and neuroanatomy of the aging brain. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 516 Evidence: moderate

Higher cardiovascular risk burden may predict decline in episodic memory, working memory, and perceptual speed and is associated with neurodegeneration and vascular lesions in the brain. 4 key findings →

Participants: 378 Evidence: low

Late-life lower BMI relates to faster rates of decline in cognition, specifically semantic memory and episodic memory, in both blacks and whites. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,134 Evidence: moderate

Preclinical AD predicts decline in memory and executive functions in subjective complaints

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2013-09-18

We assessed whether preclinical Alzheimer disease (AD) based on CSF biomarkers at baseline predicts decline in cognitive functioning as measured by repeated neuropsychological tests for 4 cognitive domains in patients with subjective complaints. 4 key findings →

Participants: 132 Evidence: moderate

Timing of hormone therapy and dementia: the critical window theory revisited

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2010-11-12

Although previous research has shown that initiation of postmenopausal estrogen hormone therapy (HT) in late life increases risk of dementia, animal studies and some observational studies have suggested that midlife use of HT may be beneficial; however, this has not been rigorously investigated in large population-based studies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,524 Evidence: low

Association of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2022-06-06

In cognitively unimpaired (CU) adults at baseline, the risk for progression to dementia increased for every decile increase in the ADI state ranking (hazard ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval (1.01-1.11), P = .01). 5 key findings →

Participants: 4,699 Evidence: low

On average, participants were aged 63 years and had 16 years of education. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 100 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