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

Showing 26–50 of 208 studies (page 2 of 9) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 208 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 208 studies tagged reserve — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

Linking detailed HCAP cognitive assessments to the wealth of available longitudinal HRS data on cognition, health, biomarkers, genetics, health care utilization, informal care, and economic resources and behavior will provide unique and expanded opportunities to study cognitive impairment and dementia in a nationally representative US population-based sample. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,496 Evidence: moderate

The Panama Aging Research Initiative Longitudinal Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. MEDICC review 2019

The Panama Aging Research Initiative is a cohort study of 423 adults aged ≥65 years recruited from an outpatient geriatric department of Panama's largest public hospital, the Social Security Fund's Dr Arnulfo Arias Madrid Hospital Complex (Complejo Hospitalario Dr Arnulfo Arias Madrid de la Caja de Seguro Social). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 423 Evidence: moderate

In cross-sectional analyses at baseline, there was no association between DNAm age acceleration and cognitive function scores. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 266 Evidence: moderate

In the SoUth Korean study to PrEvent cognitive impaiRment and protect BRAIN health through lifestyle intervention in at-risk elderly people (SUPERBRAIN), we evaluated the impact of multidomain lifestyle intervention on regional homogeneity (ReHo) in resting-state functional brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 56 Evidence: moderate

Two distinct literacy profiles emerged. The first group (N=121, 44%) had higher level of literacy at baseline, slower decline and less variabilities over time. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 121 Evidence: moderate

Cohort Profile Update: The Lothian Birth Cohorts of 1921 and 1936

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. International Journal of Epidemiology 2018-01-29

By wave, compared with those who remained in the LBC1921 study at Waves 1 to 5, participants who dropped out had: significantly lower older-age IQ scores at Wave 1 Wave 2 = and Wave 3 = lower scores at Waves and at Waves 1 = and 2 = By wave, compared with those who remained in the LBC1936 study at Waves 1 to participants who dropped out had: significantly lower older-age IQ scores at Wave 1 Wave 2 = and Wave 3 = lower scores at Wave 1 = Wave 2 and Wave 3 = lower at Wave 1 = Wave 2 = and Wave 3 and lower physical as at Wave 1 Wave 2 = and Wave 3 = and at Wave 1 = at each wave in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1921 are mean and standard for and for each wave sample = Wave 1 = Waves 1 and 2 = Waves 2 and 3 = Waves IQ from Moray House Test for age in at time of testing and to IQ is the was from to from the in 1 and at Wave 1. as of from the Wave 2 two participants who not Wave 1. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 87 Evidence: moderate

A+/High-EA individuals exhibited slower cognitive decline in global cognition and language domains than A+/Low-EA individuals. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In weighted models, greater loneliness was associated with microinfarcts, lower episodic and working memory in the absence of AD pathology, lower working memory in the absence of infarcts, a stronger association of infarcts with lower episodic memory, and a stronger association of microinfarcts with lower working and semantic memory. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 680 Evidence: low

Carotid atherosclerosis and 10-year changes in cognitive function

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Atherosclerosis 2012-07-25

In this population-based longitudinal study, carotid IMT was associated with a higher risk of developing cognitive impairment during the 10-year follow-up, and was associated with poorer performance in a test of executive function 10 years later. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,651 Evidence: moderate

ObjectivesIdentifying modifiable factors that shape cognitive aging trajectories is a central goal in aging research. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,140 Evidence: moderate

The development of Alzheimer's disease (AD) later in life may be reflective of environmental factors operating over the course of a lifetime. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 193 Evidence: moderate

Participants with faster DunedinPACE had poorer cognitive functioning at baseline and experienced more rapid cognitive decline over follow-up. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,296 Evidence: moderate

Greater educational attainment and mental activity were associated with higher composite SPPB scores and those of its three subtests (p < 0.05). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,714 Evidence: low

An increased incidence of mild cognitive impairment was observed in community-dwelling elderly adults who had nonpsychotic psychiatric symptoms at baseline. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 365 Evidence: moderate

Regular musical activity as a complex multimodal lifestyle activity is proposed to be protective against age-related cognitive decline and Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate

Blacks and Hispanics were more prone to falsely positive perceptions of their cognitive function in the presence of cognitive impairment than non-Hispanic Whites. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,096 Evidence: low

Compared with food secure older adults, those reporting food insecurity experienced worsened cognitive functioning over time (B = -0.63, p < .001), and they were more likely to have onset of cognitive impairment (OR= 1.46, p < .001) in the 6-y observation. 5 key findings →

Participants: 6,638 Evidence: low

Positive associations between self-efficacy and language did not significantly differ across race/ethnicity, although the bivariate association between self-efficacy and language was not significant among Hispanics. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 548 Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

9 of the 208 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 27,780 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