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.

These findings indicate that a 4-week simultaneous memory training and aerobic exercise program is sufficient to improve memory, attention, and reasoning abilities in older adults. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Cognitive training was effective in enhancing the overall cognitive functioning of less educated older adults with subjective memory complaints. 2 key findings →

Participants: 111 Evidence: high

Since our cognitive training showed beneficial effects, it could be a promising method to prevent POCD. 1 key finding →

Participants: 37 Evidence: high

In this pilot study, RFM and the multi-domain approach CPR were feasible and had preliminary beneficial effects in older adults with MCI in primary care setting in Hong Kong. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Progression of brain atrophy and cognitive decline in diabetes mellitus: a 3-year follow-up

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Neurology 2010-09-01

Our data show that elderly patients with DM without dementia have accelerated progression of brain atrophy with significant consequences in cognition compared to subjects without DM. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 89 Evidence: high

This randomized trial gave hearing aids plus counseling, or only general health education, to 977 older adults with untreated hearing loss, then tracked cognition for three years. 4 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 977 Evidence: moderate

Five RCTs of the Mediterranean diet and cognition have been published to date. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,888 Evidence: high

It has been suggested that various different vitamin and mineral supplements might be useful in maintaining cognitive function and delaying the onset of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 516 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

Exercise intensity did not differentially affect cognitive trajectory. 2 key findings →

Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 296 Evidence: moderate

These findings extend the evidence base for multidomain lifestyle interventions to populations historically under-represented in dementia research, supporting their feasibility and scalability as strategies to reduce cognitive decline risk amid the rapidly growing burden of dementia in low-income and middle-income countries. 3 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 1,065 Evidence: moderate

Association Between Consumption of Ultraprocessed Foods and Cognitive Decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2023-02-01

A higher percentage of daily energy consumption of ultraprocessed foods was associated with cognitive decline among adults from an ethnically diverse sample. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 10,775 Evidence: moderate

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

Aerobic exercise has shown inconsistent cognitive effects in older adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 96 Evidence: high

Participants allocated to CR received 10 weekly sessions over 3 months and four maintenance sessions over 6 months. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 475 Evidence: high

Cognitive training involving speed of cognitive processing has the potential to delay the diagnosis of ADRD. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,021 Evidence: high

Home-based CCT with adaptive difficulty and personal tailoring appears superior to more generic CCT in relation to both cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

The HBA-CT program improves cognitive, mood, and sleep functions in older adults 'at risk' of dementia, and therefore offers promise as a secondary prevention strategy. 1 key finding →

Participants: 64 Evidence: high

Cognitive training in Parkinson's disease reduces cognitive decline in the long term

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. European journal of neurology 2014-12-22

This study gives evidence that cognitive training may be effective to prevent cognitive decline and onset of MCI in PD patients. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Aerobic exercise combined with computerized cognitive training has better effects on the cognitive functional status of survivors of stroke than an active control. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high

A 26-wk group-based exercise program combined with dual-task training improved GCF in community-dwelling older adults without dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 44 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