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.

Trial of the MIND Diet for Prevention of Cognitive Decline in Older Persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 87 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2023-07-18

Among cognitively unimpaired participants with a family history of dementia, changes in cognition and brain MRI outcomes from baseline to year 3 did not differ significantly between those who followed the MIND diet and those who followed the control diet with mild caloric restriction. 5 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 604 Evidence: null result

Modifiable vascular and lifestyle-related risk factors have been associated with dementia risk in observational studies. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 631 Evidence: high

These findings suggest that a hearing intervention might reduce cognitive change over 3 years in populations of older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline but not in populations at decreased risk for cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 858 Evidence: high

We found moderate-quality evidence that postoperative cognitive dysfunction at three months could be reduced in these patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,929 Evidence: high

Effects of Mindfulness Training and Exercise on Cognitive Function in Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 84 out of 100. JAMA 2022-12-01

Among older adults with subjective cognitive concerns, mindfulness training, exercise, or both did not result in significant differences in improvement in episodic memory or executive function at 6 months. 5 key findings →

Participants: 150 Evidence: high

In this clinical trial, older adults with MCI receiving aerobic-resistance exercises with sequential computerized cognitive training significantly improved cognition, although some results were inconsistent. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of multidomain intervention (MI) tailored to the Korean context. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 51 Evidence: high

Mediterranean Diet and Age-Related Cognitive Decline: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 82 out of 100. JAMA Internal Medicine 2015

Epidemiologic studies suggest that a Mediterranean diet, an antioxidant-rich cardioprotective dietary pattern, delays cognitive decline, but clinical trial evidence is lacking. 5 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 447 Evidence: moderate

Among sedentary older adults, a 24-month moderate-intensity physical activity program compared with a health education program did not result in improvements in global or domain-specific cognitive function. 5 key findings →

Participants: 818 Evidence: high

Among postmenopausal women aged 65 years or older, estrogen plus progestin did not improve cognitive function when compared with placebo. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,145 Evidence: high

Further studies are warranted to develop and refine the specific MIND diet for different populations. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 224,049 Evidence: moderate

The 172 total participants had a mean (SD) age of 75.7 (4.8) years, and 108 (62.8%) were women. 4 key findings →

Participants: 172 Evidence: high

The overall effect size (Hedges' g, random effects model) for CCT versus control was small and statistically significant, g = 0.22 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.29). 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,885 Evidence: high

The intervention did not improve global cognitive performance. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 819 Evidence: high

Only RCTs were included in this study; there were eleven studies ( n = 2609 participants) of the Mediterranean diet, seven studies ( n = 313) of the ketogenic diet and one study ( n = 37) of the MIND diet. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 2,609 Evidence: high

This systematic review suggests that CCT interventions could improve global cognitive function in patients with MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,059 Evidence: high

Current pharmacologic therapies are for symptomatic AD patients, whereas nonpharmacologic training is administrable before symptom onset. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 125 Evidence: high

Vascular management takes place every 3-6 months or otherwise as specified by study physicians. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,200 Evidence: high

The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that cognitive impairment and delirium are major issues in CABG patients which require specific attention. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 91,829 Evidence: high

Heart Rate Variability and Cognitive Function: A Systematic Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 81 out of 100. Frontiers in neuroscience 2019-07-09

Both increased sympathetic activity and decreased parasympathetic activity seem to be associated with a worse performance in the cognitive domains considered, in the absence of dementia and severe cardiovascular diseases or other medical and psychiatric diseases. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 19,431 Evidence: high

Physical Activity and Cognitive Decline Among Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 80 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-02-05

In this meta-analysis of the association of physical activity with cognitive decline, physical activity was associated with better late-life cognition, but the association was weak. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 341,471 Evidence: moderate

In this study of adults with subjective memory impairment, a 6-month program of physical activity provided a modest improvement in cognition over an 18-month follow-up period. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 170 Evidence: high

For women aged 65 years or older, hormone therapy had an adverse effect on cognition, which was greater among women with lower cognitive function at initiation of treatment. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,387 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