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.

Among Medicare beneficiaries with dementia who visited an ED, there was no evidence that hospital admission was associated with mortality rates. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 872,085 Evidence: moderate

Brain reserve and dementia: a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Psychological medicine 2005-10-06

This study demonstrates robust evidence that complex patterns of mental activity in the early, mid- and late-life stages is associated with a significant reduction in dementia incidence. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 29,000 Evidence: high

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

The heterogeneous and multi-factorial nature of dementia requires the consideration of all health aspects when predicting the risk of its development and planning strategies for its prevention. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

This systematic review and meta-analyses covering a wide range of observational studies and diverse settings provides robust support for the CR hypothesis. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 437,477 Evidence: high

We aimed to determine the effect of live attenuated herpes zoster vaccination on incident dementia diagnoses among people aged 70 years and older using a natural experiment in Ontario, Canada, and to triangulate these findings, using a second natural experiment in Ontario and a quasi-experimental approach that uses data from multiple Canadian provinces. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 232,124 Evidence: moderate

Delirium and incident dementia in hospital patients in New South Wales, Australia: retrospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. BMJ 2024-03-27

The study findings suggest delirium was a strong risk factor for death and incident dementia among older adult patients. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 110,422 Evidence: moderate

Memantine for dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2003-01-01

Main results Effect of memantine in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: analysis of the change from baseline at 28 weeks gave statistically significant results in favour of memantine for 20 mg/day on cognition (MD: 6.1. 95% CI 2.99 to 9.21, P=0.0001) activities of daily living (MD 2.10, 95% CI 0.46 to 3.74, p=0.01) and in the global clinical impression of change measured by the CIBIC-Plus at 28 weeks (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.02, p=0.04), in all cases the analysis was the ITT-LOCF population (Reisberg 2000). 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

High-Risk Medications in Persons Living With Dementia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2024-12-01

These findings suggest medication-specific educational mailings targeting patients with AD or ADRD and their clinicians are not effective in reducing the use of high-risk medications. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 787 Evidence: high

Being married is associated with reduced risk of dementia than widowed and lifelong single people, who are also underdiagnosed in routine clinical practice. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 15 Evidence: high

Variation in service use among sites was most plausibly accounted for by stark differences in the extent of out-of-pocket expenses, and the ability of older people and their families to afford them. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 17,944 Evidence: high

A Comparison of the Prevalence of Dementia in the United States in 2000 and 2012

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2017-01-01

The study cohorts had an average age of 75.0 years (95% CI, 74.8-75.2 years) in 2000 and 74.8 years (95% CI, 74.5-75.1 years) in 2012 (P = .24); 58.4% (95% CI, 57.3%-59.4%) of the 2000 cohort was female compared with 56.3% (95% CI, 55.5%-57.0%) of the 2012 cohort (P Conclusions and relevance The prevalence of dementia in the United States declined significantly between 2000 and 2012. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Sensitivity analyses suggest that these estimates are robust to the change in response. 2 key findings →

Participants: 2,500 Evidence: moderate

AI-based differential diagnosis of dementia etiologies on multimodal data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Nature medicine 2024-07-04

Differential diagnosis of dementia remains a challenge in neurology due to symptom overlap across etiologies, yet it is crucial for formulating early, personalized management strategies. 1 key finding →

Participants: 51,269 Evidence: low

Dementia is a highly invalidating condition and, given the progressive aging of the population, one of the major issues that health systems will have to face in future years. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Digital Detection of Dementia in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-11-03

Compared with the usual care clinics (12-month incidence, 213 of 1724 [12.4%]), the odds of an incident ADRD diagnosis were higher in the clinics randomized to QDRS plus PDM (12-month incidence, 355 of 2301 [15.4%]; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05-1.64) but not the clinics randomized to PDM only (12-month incidence, 134 of 1300 [10.3%]; AOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63-1.11]). 3 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 5,325 Evidence: moderate

Using datasets from a wide range of geographical regions, we found that both early life education and adulthood occupational complexity were independently predictive of dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,195 Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

10 of the 1,233 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