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.

Cardiovascular diseases and risk of dementia in the general population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 2025-03-05

Observationally, CVDs were associated with risk of all incident outcomes in meta-analyses, with hazard ratios up to 7.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.20, 7.92). 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,373 Evidence: high

Association between vaccinations and risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2025-10-30

Adult vaccinations, particularly against herpes zoster, influenza, pneumococcus and Tdap, are associated with a lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 104,031,186 Evidence: moderate

Contribution of Modifiable Midlife and Late-Life Vascular Risk Factors to Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-07-01

A total of 7731 participants were included in analysis of risk factors measured at age 45 to 54 years (4494 female [58%]; 2207 Black [29%]; 5524 White [71%]), 12 274 contributed to analysis of risk factors measured at age 55 to 64 years (6698 female [55%]; 2886 Black [24%]; 9388 White [76%]), and 6787 contributed to analysis of risk factors measured at age 65 to 74 years (3764 female [56%], 1375 Black [20%]; 5412 White [80%]). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 12,274 Evidence: moderate

Over a median follow-up of 10·0 years (IQR 5·1-21·3), high physical activity levels were associated with reduced risks of all-cause dementia (n=146 effect sizes; RR 0·80 [95% CI 0·75-0·86]; I 2 =97·4%), Alzheimer's disease (n=59; 0·79 [0·70-0·90]; I 2 =91·3%), and vascular dementia (n=21; 0·71 [0·58-0·87]; I 2 =77·5%); however, associations varied by domain. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,227,297 Evidence: high

Association of Cardiovascular Risk Trajectory With Cognitive Decline and Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Neurology 2022-04-20

The findings of the current study show that the longitudinal, cumulative trajectory of cardiovascular risk is predictive of dementia risk and associated with the emergence of memory decline. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,244 Evidence: moderate

Overall, we showed that SDB was associated with MTL atrophy in cognitively asymptomatic older adults engaged in the Alzheimer continuum, which may increase the risk of developing memory impairment over time. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 122 Evidence: high

The mean (SD) age was 73.7 (6.0) years, and the mean (SD) follow-up time was 3.7 (1.2) years. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 223 Evidence: moderate

Is physical activity a potential preventive factor for vascular dementia? A systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Aging & mental health 2010-05-01

We conclude that there is evidence supporting the hypothesis that physical activity is likely to prevent the development of VaD, and should be highlighted as part of secondary prevention programmes in people at risk for cerebrovascular disease. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,378 Evidence: high

Trajectories of Depressive Symptoms in Older Adults and Risk of Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. JAMA psychiatry 2016-05-01

The analytic cohort included 2488 black and white older adults with repeated depressive symptom assessments from baseline to year 5 who were free of dementia throughout that period. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,322 Evidence: moderate

Early-life factors, including education level, leg length, history of childhood head trauma, family-related factors and learning ability, were associated with the risk of dementia and cognitive impairment in later life. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 46,727 Evidence: high

Diabetes, even prediabetes and changes of diabetes-related biochemical indicators, predicted increased incidence of cognitive impairment and dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Is dementia incidence declining?: Trends in dementia incidence since 1990 in the Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Neurology 2012-05-02

In the 1990 subcohort (25,696 person-years), 286 persons developed dementia, and in the 2000 subcohort (8,384 person-years), 49 persons. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,727 Evidence: moderate

Controversies persist regarding the association between blood pressure (BP) and the risks of cognitive impairment and dementia due to inconsistent definitions of BP exposure and varying population characteristics. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

To determine incidence of dementia in type 2 diabetic (T2DM) patients, and whether there are adverse or favorable effects of oral agents (OA) in DM, we obtained a representative cohort of 800,000 from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance database. 2 key findings →

Participants: 127,209 Evidence: moderate

If the associations we observed are causal, then air pollution from traffic might be an important risk factor for vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,806 Evidence: moderate

In this cohort of French older adults, higher adherence to the French MIND diet was associated with a lower dementia risk and with preserved white matter microstructure. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,412 Evidence: moderate

In our large population-based sample, frailty syndrome was a short-term predictor of overall dementia and VaD. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,581 Evidence: moderate

ChEIs may increase the risk of syncope, with no effects on falls, fracture, or accidental injury in cognitively impaired older adults. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

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