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.

The independent and combined effects of physical and cognitive domains of frailty in predicting the development of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia are not firmly established. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Between 1997 and 2016, we repeatedly assessed cognitive function with 5 tests in 9514 participants aged 45-90 years from the population-based Rotterdam Study. 4 key findings →

Participants: 9,514 Evidence: low

The neuroprotective effects of estrogen have been demonstrated consistently in cellular and animal studies but the evidence in women remains conflicted. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Among 45 029 participants undergoing cognitive assessment, mean (SD) age was 67.9 (8.0) years; 80.7% were men. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,197 Evidence: high

Berry Consumption and Its Role in the Modulation of Obesity and Mild Cognitive Impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Nutrients 2026-02-19

Most dementias are preceded by mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a transitional clinical stage characterized by cognitive decline that does not yet significantly interfere with activities of daily living. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Regression analysis indicated that APOE ε4 non-carriers showed significantly greater improvement in MMN amplitude (β = ‒0.449, p = 0.027). 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 21 Evidence: high

MAF supplementation improved cognitive function, especially after 6 months, in elderly people undergoing rehabilitation. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: low

The findings from this study have the potential to significantly enhance efforts to ameliorate cognitive aging and slow dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 360 Evidence: high

We conclude that eight-week MBI for older adults are feasible, but results on cognitive improvement are inconclusive due a limited number of studies, small sample sizes, and a high risk of bias. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

People with MCI are at increased risk of developing AD. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 51 Evidence: high

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04821960; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04821960. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Recent research has linked age-related hearing loss to impaired performance across cognitive domains and increased risk for dementia diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

This article summarizes the presentations and recommendations of the tenth annual American Geriatrics Society and National Institute on Aging Bench-to-Bedside research conference, "Sensory Impairment and Cognitive Decline," on October 2-3, 2017, in Bethesda, Maryland. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Derangements in cerebrovascular structure and function can impair cognitive performance throughout ageing and in cardiometabolic disease states, thus increasing dementia risk. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Baseline cognition was poorer in individuals born and residing in the South, particularly those attending desegregated schools at age 12. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Our findings suggest that poor chewing ability is associated with cognitive impairment or dementia in the elderly living in rural area. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 295 Evidence: low

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