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.

Sleep, EEG and mental function changes in senile dementia of the Alzheimer's type

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 1982-01-01

Sleep, EEG and mental function variables were studied in 44 subjects diagnosed as having probable senile dementia of the Alzheimer's type (SDAT) and 22 controls matched for age and minimal depression. 3 key findings →

Participants: 44 Evidence: low

Sleep and waking EEGs from 11 healthy nondemented elderly men and from ten inpatients for whom the diagnosis was probable senile dementia of Alzheimer's type (SDAT), were monitored in the subjects' typical home or ward environments or in the sleep laboratory, according to their customary sleep schedules. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We studied whether anxiety symptoms and anxiety disorders are associated with the risk of dementia and cognition. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,708 Evidence: low

After adjusting for multi-morbidity and relocation-related selection bias, we saw that people living in regions with the highest tertile of income (HR = 0.87, p < 0.001), and who had the highest tertile of remaining life expectancy at age 60 (HR = 0.93, p = 0.012) had lower dementia risks. 5 key findings →

Participants: 250,000 Evidence: low

Mapping social health and dementia risk: A register-based study of older adults in Finland

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Social Science & Medicine 2026-03-05

This study investigates the role of individual and area-level social health factors in shaping geographic variation in dementia incidence among older adults in Finland. 1 key finding →

Participants: 185,712 Evidence: low

The cluster analysis identified 3 distinct groups: Group 1 was low resource/high distress (n = 215); Group 2 was high resource/low distress (n = 248); and Group 3 was low resource/low distress (n = 353; Figure 1). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 215 Evidence: moderate

In 2021, global mortality from AD and other dementias among individuals aged 60 and older reached approximately 1,922,970.75 cases (95% CI: 480,348.08 to 5,104,315.95), and the prevalence was 52,560,253.51 cases (95% CI: 41,399,948.84 to 65,633,448.71). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Among a cohort comprising 109,778 individuals, the use of GLP-1RA demonstrated a reduced risk of dementia compared with its non-use (aHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97). 4 key findings →

Participants: 109,778 Evidence: moderate

At baseline, participants were aged 70-95 years (mean: 75.2 ± 4.3), with 54% being women. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

In mid-life, the sample sizes ranged from 4100 in 2022 to 5589 in 2017-18 and in late-life from 2799 in 2011-12 to 3762 in 2017-18. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Our study suggested that the long‐term exposure to air pollution was associated an increased risk of the transitions from health to incident cataract, dementia or the progression of both conditions. 2 key findings →

Participants: 409,608 Evidence: low

After adjusting for various factors, the incidence of Alzheimer dementia was significantly higher in the anosmia group compared to the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.04-1.28). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 8,023 Evidence: moderate

=0.002). Early-onset CHD and genetic susceptibility are associated with a higher risk of incident dementia and a larger WMH volume. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 671 Evidence: moderate

Hyperhomocysteinemia (HHcy) is an established risk factor for cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 507 Evidence: moderate

The possible mediating role of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the relationship between alcohol use disorders (AUD) and the risk of early-onset (<age 65) and late-onset (≥age 65) dementia lacks formal investigation. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular risk factors and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The American journal of geriatric pharmacotherapy 2008-06-01

From a clinical perspective, these data further support the rationale for physicians to provide effective management of CVD risk factors and for patients to be compliant with such recommendations to possibly prevent cognitive decline/dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

From across this tag

9 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 9. The same 9 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