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.

As aging is associated with cognitive decline, particularly in the executive functions, it is essential to effectively improve cognition in older adults. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

MBSR is well-accepted potentially promising intervention with positive effect on cognition, depressive symptoms and immunological profile. 5 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

Following the rapid increase of the aging population, health promotion and prevention of physical disability and dementia in older persons are essential for healthy aging. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Cognitive training in MCI may be enhanced by atDCS, but further delineation of the impact of current brain state, as well as temporal characteristics of multi-session atDCS-training application, may be needed to induce longer-lasting effects. 2 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: low

Vortioxetine may be beneficial for age-related cognitive decline when combined with cognitive training. 4 key findings →

Participants: 100 Evidence: low

Modifiable lifestyle risk factors have been identified as playing a major role in the development of dementia; hence, interventions addressing these risk factors represent a significant opportunity to reduce the number of people developing dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

It is hypothesised that exercise and Mediterranean diet interventions, both individually and in combination, will result in improvements in cognitive performance compared with controls. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

This pilot study aimed to compare the effect of companion robots (PARO) to participation in an interactive reading group on emotions in people living with moderate to severe dementia in a residential care setting. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Our findings suggest that older patients with reduced preoperative cognitive functions or who develop postoperative delirium are at risk of developing dementia within 5 years after cardiac surgery. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 114 Evidence: moderate

Use of HAs is associated with delayed diagnosis of AD, dementia, depression, anxiety, and injurious falls among older adults with HL. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 114 Evidence: high

Atrial fibrillation and cognitive decline: a longitudinal cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Neurology 2013-06-05

In the absence of clinical stroke, people with incident atrial fibrillation are likely to reach thresholds of cognitive impairment or dementia at earlier ages than people with no history of atrial fibrillation. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 5,150 Evidence: moderate

Association Between Lifestyle at Different Life Periods and Brain Integrity in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Neurology 2025-02-07

In 135 older adults (mean age = 69.3 years; women = 61.5%), no associations were found within AD-signature regions (all p > 0.25). 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

In elderly hypertensive patients, a slightly more effective blood pressure reduction during candesartan-based therapy, compared with control therapy, was associated with a modest, statistically non-significant, reduction in major cardiovascular events and with a marked reduction in non-fatal stroke. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 4,964 Evidence: high

Pre- and postoperative orthogeriatric care given in an acute geriatric ward was not effective in reducing delirium or long-term cognitive impairment in patients with hip fracture. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 329 Evidence: high

Pulse pressure and pulse wave velocity, markers of arterial stiffness, have been associated with stroke, dementia, and lowered levels of cognitive function. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,749 Evidence: moderate

As one of few meta-analyses comparing different quantities of physical activity and exercise interventions for AD in details, our study suggests that physical activity and exercise can improve cognition of older adults with AD. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 673 Evidence: high

Purpose of the study During aging, musical activities can help maintain physical and mental health and cognitive abilities, but their rehabilitative use has not been systematically explored in persons with dementia (PWDs). 1 key finding →

Participants: 30 Evidence: high

Analysis was performed on 115 participants as the full analysis set (probiotic 55, placebo 60). 4 key findings →

Participants: 130 Evidence: low

Excessive sleepiness is predictive of cognitive decline in the elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Sleep 2012-09-01

Study objectives To examine the association of sleep complaints reported at baseline (insomnia complaints and excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS)) and medication, with cognitive decline in community-dwelling elderly. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 4,894 Evidence: moderate

The trial occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 106 Evidence: high

Although no overall EF benefit was observed, RE improved attentional/inhibitory control in cognitively normal older adults. 4 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 90 Evidence: null result

There was a significant interaction (P = 0.024) between B vitamin treatment and plasma combined ω-3 fatty acids (eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid) on brain atrophy rates. 5 key findings →

Participants: 83 Evidence: low

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