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 relation between vitamin A (VA) level and cognitive function and the underlying mechanisms have not been thoroughly investigated. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,817 Evidence: low

Among 90 participants included in the analyses, 34 had moderate to severe WMH. 5 key findings →

Participants: 154 Evidence: high

These findings suggest that HB-CCT via Neurotablet can effectively enhance specific cognitive abilities in PD, supporting the role of digital, home-based interventions as feasible strategies to mitigate cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: high

The Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet has been related to a lower risk of dementia and better cognitive function. 4 key findings →

Participants: 45,906 Evidence: low

Our analysis revealed that 26.40% of the participants had mild cognitive impairment, whereas 48.50% demonstrated low adherence to the MIND diet. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 462 Evidence: moderate

MCI patients showed significantly reduced plasma levels of TGF-β1 and increased TNF-α concentrations compared to other participants. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 37 Evidence: low

COG-T CHD is the first clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of computer-based cognitive training in patients with coronary heart disease, filling an important gap in the treatment evidence for cognitive digital therapy. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Cognitive decline and dementia represent major and growing global health challenges, driven largely by population aging and increased longevity. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

In this exploratory sequential mixed-methods study, interviews with 125 adults aged 55-92 (mean age 71) living in the Minneapolis (Minnesota) metropolitan area suggested that eateries, including coffee shops and fast-food restaurants, represent popular neighborhood destinations for older adults and sources of wellbeing. 5 key findings →

Participants: 16,404 Evidence: low

In practice, knowledge and expertise are critical for effective functioning, and the available evidence suggests that older adults effectively employ specific knowledge and expertise and can gain new knowledge when it is required. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Higher levels of accordance with both the DASH and Mediterranean dietary patterns were associated with consistently higher levels of cognitive function in elderly men and women over an 11-y period. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,831 Evidence: low

Higher adherence to the MedDiet is associated with better cognitive function and lower risk of poor cognition in older UK adults. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that is increasingly used in research and clinical settings to enhance the effects of cognitive training. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Performance on a brief cognitive screen on admission was strongly related to subsequent change in function. 2 key findings →

Participants: 2,557 Evidence: low

The preliminary findings from this study support the possibility that aerobic fitness is positively associated with the memory performance of those individuals at most genetic risk for Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 90 Evidence: low

This research indicates that diet and exercise programs have the potential to improve aspects of cognition and mood in an aging population. 4 key findings →

Participants: 102 Evidence: high

The relationship between obesity and cognitive health and decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 2017-09-11

The relationship between obesity and cognitive impairment is important given the globally ageing population in whom cognitive decline and neurodegenerative disorders will carry grave individual, societal and financial burdens. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The concept of 'cognitive reserve', and a broader theory of 'brain reserve', were originally proposed to help explain epidemiological data indicating that individuals who engaged in higher levels of mental and physical activity via education, occupation and recreation, were at lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Poor diet and obesity are associated with cognitive impairment throughout adulthood, and increased dementia risk in aging. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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