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.

) had a 14% increase in the rate of dementia incidence (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.23; P <.001), and each standard deviation (SD) decrease in eBMD was associated with a 49% increase in dementia risk (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.19-1.86; P <.001). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 131,030 Evidence: moderate

Of the patients, 82.2% were receiving at least one dizziness-associated medication and 71.2% at least one hypotension-associated medication. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 210 Evidence: moderate

During the COVID-19 pandemic, home health agencies (HHAs) discharges following acute hospitalizations increased. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 426,766 Evidence: moderate

Adherence to MIND Diet, Genetic Susceptibility, and Incident Dementia in Three US Cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Nutrients 2022-07-03

Adherence to Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) may lower the risk of dementia by impacting immunity and cholesterol, which are pathways also implicated by genome-wide association studies of Alzheimer’s Dementia (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 2,449 Evidence: low

Heavy smoking in midlife and long-term risk of Alzheimer disease and vascular dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Archives of internal medicine 2010-10-25

In this large cohort, heavy smoking in midlife was associated with a greater than 100% increase in risk of dementia, AD, and VaD more than 2 decades later. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,367 Evidence: moderate

Increasing oily fish intake has been proposed as a strategy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention, but evidence for long-term benefit remains limited. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 2,012 Evidence: null result

The results of this study indicate an AD-specific peripheral complement signature associated with disease development, highlighting complement factors as critical immune mediators that link aging and AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 558 Evidence: moderate

Mid-life smoking and late-life dementia: the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2003-07-01

We studied the association between mid-life smoking and late-life dementia in the Honolulu Heart Program (1965-1971) and follow-up assessment for dementia (1991-1996) of 3734 Japanese-American men (80% of survivors). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

As the population ages due to demographic trends and gains in life expectancy, the incidence and prevalence of dementia increases, and the need to understand the etiology and pathogenesis of dementia becomes ever more urgent. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Antioxidants have been hypothesized to protect against Alzheimer's disease, but studies conducted in late life have been inconsistent. 2 key findings →

Participants: 2,459 Evidence: low

On average, the risk of dementia seems to increase with the number of episodes in depressive and bipolar affective disorders. 2 key findings →

Participants: 18,726 Evidence: low

Change in eating behaviour was significantly more common in both of the frontotemporal dementia groups than in Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

We surveyed 1,545 subjects--recruited into the UK Medical Research Council elderly hypertension treatment trial between 1982 and 1987--to detect incident cases of dementia, identifying 50 cases of dementia, including 31 cases of probable or possible Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,545 Evidence: low

Cerebral microbleeds and risk of incident dementia: the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2017-03-06

Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) are MRI markers attributed to the most common cerebral angiopathies in the elderly and in patients with dementia: hypertensive and cerebral amyloid angiopathy. 4 key findings →

Participants: 85 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