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.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is highly prevalent but very frequently undiagnosed. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Vascular risk factors for Alzheimer disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) have been evaluated; however, few studies have compared risks by dementia subtypes and sex. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

The current study examined the interactive effect of type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer disease (AD) risk factors on the rate of functional decline in cognitively normal participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 69 Evidence: moderate

Data from 2,133 participants with autopsy-confirmed AD (i.e., at least Braak neurofibrillary tangle stages III to VI and CERAD neuritic plaque score moderate to frequent) were obtained from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC). 4 key findings →

Participants: 194 Evidence: low

The association of testosterone concentrations with dementia risk remains uncertain. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Adipokines: a link between obesity and dementia?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2014-09-01

Being overweight or obese, as measured with body-mass index or central adiposity (waist circumference), and the trajectory of body-mass index over the life course have been associated with brain atrophy, white matter changes, disturbances of blood-brain barrier integrity, and risk of all-cause late-onset dementia and Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

= 0.041). Socioeconomic status and residential area are associated with long-term survival in patients with EOD. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,825 Evidence: moderate

The study population consisted of 16,981 individuals (mean age: 62.4, 51.6% female, 68.7% non-Hispanic White, 15.5% in rural areas). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 16,981 Evidence: low

Fine particulate matter, known as PM 2.5, is recognized as a risk factor for dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 217,336 Evidence: moderate

There was a significant difference in dementia incidence in the HSV-infected group versus the control. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

We identified 132,968 individuals, of whom 12,088 with severe Zoster, 60,440 matched controls among the general population, and 60,440 matched controls among the hospitalised population. 5 key findings →

Participants: 132,968 Evidence: moderate

Among the 18,013 participants with complete data for analysis, 516 (2.86%) exhibited cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27,768 Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular risk factors and the allostatic interoceptive network in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Cardiovascular Research 2025-10-01

We recruited 1501 participants (304 with FTLD, 512 with AD, and 685 healthy controls) from the Multi-Partner Consortium to Expand Dementia Research in Latin America (ReDLat). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,501 Evidence: low

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with poorer cognitive performance and increased dementia risk. 2 key findings →

Participants: 9,943 Evidence: low

Of the 250 participants, 121 (48.4%) were female and the mean age at follow-up was 76.06 (SD 0.48). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 250 Evidence: moderate

Elevated FSH and reduced LH may be associated with poorer cognition and an increased risk of AD-D in very old Chinese adults, particularly in males. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 509 Evidence: moderate

Affective symptoms are of prognostic utility, but interventions to prevent dementia syndromes are limited. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Diabetes is related to cerebral infarction but not to AD pathology in older persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2006-12-01

Subjects were 233 older Catholic clergy in the Religious Orders Study, who underwent detailed annual evaluations, including neuropsychological testing, and brain autopsy at time of death (mean age 86 years, 45% men). 2 key findings →

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