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.

Primary outcome was feasibility of the multimodal intervention, evaluated by recruitment rate during a 6-month recruitment phase, overall adherence in each intervention arm, and 6-month retention rate. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 93 Evidence: high

Profiles of high risk for future dementia are well understood and are likely to concern mostly those in low-income and middle-income countries and people at greater disadvantage in high-income countries. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,400 Evidence: high

In a large dementia prevention trial with 6-year follow-up, dropout was associated with older age, poorer cognitive function, symptoms of depression, and disability at baseline. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,994 Evidence: high

Evidence-based suggestions are proposed, offering clinicians and stakeholders current guidance for the prevention of AD. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 44 Evidence: high

The non-linear function indicates that a higher dose is not necessarily better in multidomain interventions. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 749 Evidence: high

Low dose ω3-PUFA supplementation, either alone or in combination with a multidomain lifestyle intervention comprising physical activity counselling, had no significant effects on muscle strength over 3 years in elderly people. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,679 Evidence: high

A simple exercise program, 1 hour twice a week, led to significantly slower decline in ADL score in patients with AD living in a nursing home than routine medical care. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Screening for IC impairments identifies older adults at higher risk of incident frailty and incident IADL/ADL disability. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 759 Evidence: moderate

This population-based study in community-dwellers aged 70 years or over suggested that multidomain intervention and n3 PUFA supplementation have not significant effects on cognitive function change in frail older adults with memory complaints. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We found some evidence that n-3 PUFAs might be beneficial for the maintenance of executive functioning in older adults at risk of dementia with low omega-3 index, but this exploratory finding requires further confirmation. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 183 Evidence: high

The GuidAge study is the largest study carried out in Europe on the prevention of AD. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,854 Evidence: high

One hundred two (37.9%) participants were amyloid positive. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 269 Evidence: high

This study shows that Hcy levels could modify the association between red blood cell n-3 PUFA and executive function. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,680 Evidence: high

MI failed to show an effect on metabolism in FDG-based AD biomarker, but exploratory analysis suggested positive effect on limbic system metabolism. 4 key findings →

Participants: 67 Evidence: high

Fourteen- and 16-second cut points for the CST are suitable to identify people at higher risk of functional decline among older adults in Mexico and Toledo, Spain. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Interventions that have even quite modest effects at the individual level could drastically reduce the future burden of dementia associated with Alzheimer's disease at the population level. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Defining the primary cognitive endpoint is a major decision for Alzheimer's disease preventive trials. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Persons with dementia suffer different losses at different stages of the disease and therefore accurate assessment of abilities and losses is critical to assist the person in planning for their future and for care needs. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

A study with a more intensive multidomain intervention might bring further insights on this topic. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,679 Evidence: high

The NutriAlz program had no effect on functional decline in Alzheimer disease patients living at home over one year, but reduced the risk for malnutrition, as recommendations concerning diet and exercise were provided. 2 key findings →

Participants: 448 Evidence: high

The MAPT Study is the first preventive trial involving multidomain interventions. 2 key findings →

Participants: 300 Evidence: high

↑ 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