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.

A total of 6321 participants (mean [SE] age, 56.1 [0.18] years at visit 1; n = 4077 women [57.8%]) were included. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,077 Evidence: moderate

Combined multi-domain interventions may contribute to preventing or delaying disease progression. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 33 Evidence: high

There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline age, sex, illiteracy, years of education, and scores on the K-MMSE, CDR, SNSB-II, and K-MBI. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Systematic cognitive training had no effect on global cognition or HRQoL in community-living persons with mild to moderate dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 147 Evidence: high

Question Does physical exercise training improve physical function and quality of life in people with cognitive impairment and dementia? 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 3,988 Evidence: high

There is moderate-to-strong support that PA benefits cognitive functioning during early and late periods of the life span and in certain populations characterized by cognitive deficits. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Mediterranean diet, stroke, cognitive impairment, and depression: A meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2013-09-16

Adherence to a Mediterranean diet may contribute to the prevention of a series of brain diseases; this may be of special value given the aging of Western societies. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Among older adults at risk of cognitive decline and dementia, a structured, higher-intensity intervention had a statistically significant greater benefit on global cognition compared with an unstructured, self-guided intervention. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,056 Evidence: high

Sex Differences in Cognitive Decline Among US Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. JAMA network open 2021-02-01

Among 34 349 participants, 26 088 who self-reported Black or White race, were free of stroke and dementia, and had covariate data at or before the first cognitive assessment were included for analysis. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 349 Evidence: moderate

RO emphasised the engagement of nursing assistants in a hopeful, therapeutic process but became associated with a rigid, confrontational approach to people with dementia, leading to its use becoming less and less common. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 718 Evidence: high

This Finnish randomized controlled trial was the first large study to show that a two-year program combining diet counseling, exercise, cognitive training, and monitoring of heart-health risk factors could help maintain or improve thinking skills in older adults at elevated dementia risk, compared with a control group who received only general health advice. 3 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high

Cataract Surgery and Cognitive Benefits in the Older Person: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Ophthalmology 2024-08

This meta-analysis pooled data from 24 observational studies covering over half a million older adults to ask whether cataract surgery is associated with lower long-term cognitive decline compared with leaving cataracts untreated. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 558,000 Evidence: moderate

Also, we performed analyses including only trials in which an increase in the cardiovascular fitness of participants had been demonstrated. 5 key findings →

Participants: 754 Evidence: high

A long-term intervention with an EVOO-rich MedDiet resulted in a better cognitive function in comparison with a control diet. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 285 Evidence: high

Where appropriate, we undertook subgroup analysis by modality (individual versus group), number of sessions and frequency, setting (community versus care home), type of control condition and dementia severity. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 37 Evidence: high

Recruitment of 2600 older people (≥65 years) at increased risk of cardiovascular disease will take place in the Netherlands, Finland and France. 2 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

Given projected increases in dementia prevalence, emphasising earlier stages of cognitive impairment in older adults enables targeted early intervention strategies. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,120 Evidence: high

Cognitive decline in aging is a pressing issue associated with significant healthcare costs and deterioration in quality of life. 4 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: high

Outcomes from this trial support the conduct of a larger and longer trial with this participant group. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 57 Evidence: high

Computerized cognitive training significantly improved global cognitive function, which was supported by the improved brain plasticity. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Advancing age increases the risk for diseases and health concerns like cognitive decline, constituting a major public health challenge. 1 key finding →

Participants: 631 Evidence: high

If results from this study show benefits for cognition at trial completion, CCT programs, alone or in combination with walking, might be a strategy to promote healthy cognitive aging in older adults. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial 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 27,780 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