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.

During the 12-year follow-up period, 61 participants (7.8%) had a reported hypoglycemic event, and 148 (18.9%) developed dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 783 Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular risk factors often cluster into a metabolic syndrome that may increase the risk of dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Future well-designed longitudinal researches examining the direct and indirect relationship between tooth loss and dementia risk are encouraged. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

We used Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regressions to assess whether circadian disturbances predict an increased risk of incident Alzheimer's dementia and conversion of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Dietary fatty acids and the risk of Parkinson disease: the Rotterdam study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2005-06-01

Unsaturated fatty acids are important constituents of neuronal cell membranes and have neuroprotective, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,289 Evidence: moderate

Numerous studies have investigated the impacts of common types of chronic pain (CP) on patients' cognitive function and observed that CP was associated with later dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 354,943 Evidence: moderate

Differences between users and non-users of insulin, metformin and sulfonylurea were assessed in each cohort for cognitive and brain MRI measures using linear regression models, and cognitive decline and dementia/AD risk using mixed effect models and Cox regression analyses, respectively. 4 key findings →

Participants: 3,590 Evidence: moderate

Association of orthostatic hypotension with incident dementia, stroke, and cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2018-07-25

We analyzed data from 11,709 participants without a history of coronary heart disease or stroke who attended the baseline examination (1987-1989) of the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. 4 key findings →

Participants: 11,709 Evidence: moderate

Understanding how dementia risk is impacted by timing of smoking cessation has public health implications for prevention efforts. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,347 Evidence: moderate

Delirium is a distressing neurocognitive disorder recently linked to sleep disturbances. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 818 Evidence: moderate

The objective of this study was to investigate whether increased NLR in older adults is independently associated with the risk of subsequent dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,648 Evidence: moderate

Of 736 patients (245 [33%] female, mean age 68·0 years [SD 11·2], median admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 3 [IQR 1-5]), 557 (76%) were followed up until death or the end of the study, and 706 (96%) contributed to the PSD analysis. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 736 Evidence: moderate

Physical Activity Over the Adult Life Course and Risk of Dementia in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-11-19

This study included 1526 early adult-life (mean [SD] age, 36.7 [4.7] years; 821 [53.8%] female), 1943 midlife (mean [SD] age, 54.0 [5.8] years; 1010 [52.0%] female), and 885 late-life (mean [SD] age, 71.0 [4.5] years; 473 [53.4%] female) participants. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,526 Evidence: moderate

Childhood Loneliness and Cognitive Decline and Dementia Risk in Middle-Aged and Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-09-12

Among 13 592 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.34 [9.39] years; 7175 [52.8%] female), 6525 (48.0%) experienced possible childhood loneliness, and 565 (4.2%) reported childhood loneliness. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 592 Evidence: moderate

In the present study, higher adherence to MeDi was associated with a reduced risk for dementia and cognitive decline in a traditional Mediterranean population. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 62 Evidence: moderate

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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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