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.

Multidomain lifestyle changes are beneficial for cognitive functioning, but future interventions should be intensive enough, and supporting adherence is essential. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high

In this meta-analysis, the usage of hearing restorative devices by participants with hearing loss was associated with a 19% decrease in hazards of long-term cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 137,484 Evidence: moderate

Ginkgo biloba for preventing cognitive decline in older adults: a randomized trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. JAMA 2009-12-01

Compared with placebo, the use of G. biloba, 120 mg twice daily, did not result in less cognitive decline in older adults with normal cognition or with mild cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,545 Evidence: high

Good levels of participation, adherence, and retention appear to be achievable for participants through age 85 years. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high

The Mediterranean-Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet seems a promising approach to preserve brain function during aging. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 40 Evidence: high

Two reviewers independently screened the search results and reference lists of the identified papers and related reviews. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 18 Evidence: high

Backgrounds To investigate the efficacy of a community group-based intervention among community-dwelling older adults with physio-cognitive decline syndrome (PCDS). 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 733 Evidence: high

This project will be part of the World-Wide FINGERS (Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability) Network, of which common identifiable data will be shared and harmonized among the consortia. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 165 Evidence: high

Within 17 months, participant recruitment has been successfully completed (N = 1210; mean age: 67.7 years (SD: 4.6); 64% female). 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,210 Evidence: high

Low cognitive and brain reserve and limited cognitive stimulation are associated with increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 6,742 Evidence: high

Few nutritional interventions were found to convincingly improve cognition of individuals with MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 500 Evidence: high

An intervention with MedDiets enhanced with either EVOO or nuts appears to improve cognition compared with a low-fat diet. 5 key findings →

Participants: 522 Evidence: high

Participants had a mean age of 73.4 years; 62.7% were women, and 34.9% were Hispanic or nonwhite. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 126 Evidence: high

The mean rate of brain atrophy per year was 0.76% [95% CI, 0.63-0.90] in the active treatment group and 1.08% [0.94-1.22] in the placebo group (P = 0.001). 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 271 Evidence: high

Our findings suggest that higher adherence to the MIND diet was associated with better cognitive function and potentially slower cognitive decline in later life. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,066 Evidence: high

This pilot study showed that functional tasks exercise using simulated functional tasks as a means of combined cognitive and exercise program is feasible and beneficial in improving the memory and functional status of older adults with mild cognitive impairment as well as reducing the care-related burdens of their caregivers. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 59 Evidence: high

Transferring a lifestyle intervention from a trial-setting to real life requires knowledge about the factors that influence effective implementation. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 27 Evidence: high

A 6-week robot-assisted, multi-domain cognitive training program can improve the efficiency of global cognitive function and depression during cognitive tasks in older adults with MCI, which is associated with improvements in memory and executive function. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 90 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