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.

Higher Hcy levels, lower educational attainment, and decreased physical activity were particularly strong predictors of incident AD. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Random-effects models revealed small but statistically significant effects with better psychological well-being in African American caregivers compared with white caregivers in both population-based (d = -0.22) and convenience sample studies (d = -0.21). 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 159 Evidence: high

Incidence and prevalence of dementia in the Cardiovascular Health Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2004-02-01

Classification resulted in 227 persons with prevalent dementia at entry into the study and 480 incident cases during follow-up. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 227 Evidence: moderate

Evaluation of dementia in the cardiovascular health cognition study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neuroepidemiology 2003-01-01

The CHS has developed a methodology for longitudinal studies of dementia in large cohorts and represents the largest study of dementia including cognitive testing, MRI and genetic markers. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 5,888 Evidence: moderate

Among 2946 participants (mean [SD] age, 74.9 [4.6] years; 1751 [59.4] female; 637 Black [21.6%] and 2309 White [78.4%] individuals), 1947 participants (66.1%) had audiometric hearing loss, and 1097 (37.2%) had self-reported hearing loss. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,946 Evidence: moderate

Assessment and management of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2015-03-02

Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia include agitation, depression, apathy, repetitive questioning, psychosis, aggression, sleep problems, wandering, and a variety of inappropriate behaviors. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

On the basis of their findings in this large community population of elderly people, the authors conclude that a wide range of dementia-associated mental and behavioral disturbances afflict the majority of individuals with dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 5,092 Evidence: low

Participants were most likely to develop depression, apathy, or anxiety, and least likely to develop elation or disinhibition. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Progression of Alzheimer dementia (AD) is highly variable. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Digital biomarker prognostic models can be a useful tool to assist large-scale population screening for the early detection of cognitive impairment and patient monitoring over time. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is critical yet challenging, particularly in younger individuals. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 120 Evidence: moderate

Undiagnosed dementia is common and associated with increased mortality, identifying a vulnerable population missed by current diagnostic pathways. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 13,142 Evidence: moderate

Of 65 participants (mean age = 79.4 years; women = 54%), 34% had dementia and 32% had CIND. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 65 Evidence: low

The Alzheimer's Association hosted the second Latinos & Alzheimer's Symposium in May 2021. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Characterizing the olfaction and dementia association in the community‐based ARIC study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-02-01

Compared to good olfaction, moderate olfaction (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26 to 1.86), hyposmia (HR: 2.24, 95% CI: 1.81 to 2.78), and anosmia (HR: 3.47, 95% CI: 2.77 to 4.34) were all associated with higher dementia hazard; these associations were consistent across age, race, sex, and APOE ε4 groups. 5 key findings →

Participants: 4,470 Evidence: low

Noncognitive neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) of dementia (aggression, agitation, depression, anxiety, delusions, hallucinations, apathy, disinhibition) affect individuals with dementia nearly universally across dementia stages and etiologies. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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