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.

Genome-wide association studies of cerebral white matter lesion burden: the CHARGE consortium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2011-06-01

This large GWAS of WMH burden in community-based cohorts of individuals of European descent identifies a novel locus on chromosome 17. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,024 Evidence: high

Among the 1453 participants in the Framingham dementia study sample, the mean (SD) age was 75 (7) years; 792 (54.5%) were female. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,453 Evidence: moderate

Incidence of Dementia over Three Decades in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2016

This long-running Massachusetts study tracked dementia rates over more than 30 years and found that a given person's chance of developing dementia at a given age has been steadily falling since the late 1970s. The decline was seen mainly in people with at least a high school education. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 5,205 Evidence: high

Of 31 624 156 adults discharged from French hospitals between 2008 and 2013, 1 109 343 were diagnosed with dementia and were included in the analyses. 2 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 156 Evidence: moderate

Fasting lipid fractions (triglycerides [TGs], high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], total cholesterol [TC]) were studied as continuous variables, and results are reported per SD increase of each lipid fraction. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,294 Evidence: moderate

Complaints of poor memory by older people, particularly when new, may be a realistic subjective appraisal of recent brain changes independent of observed cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,336 Evidence: moderate

APOE genotype, cholesterol level, lipid-lowering treatment, and dementia: the Three-City Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2005-05-01

This observational study provides further evidence that lipid-lowering agents are associated with decreased risk of dementia, whereas hyperlipidemia is associated with increased odds for non-Alzheimer-disease-type dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 9,294 Evidence: moderate

Selective survival of men with a healthier cardiovascular risk profile and hence lower propensity to dementia might partly explain the higher LTR of dementia/AD in women. 1 key finding →

Participants: 7,901 Evidence: low

Homocysteine, white matter hyperintensities, and cognition in healthy elderly people

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2003-02-01

Hyperhomocysteinemia is associated with an increased risk of vascular disease, and recent results suggest that it also could increase the risk of dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,241 Evidence: moderate

Higher baseline p-tau181 and NfL were associated with significantly faster decline in most cognitive, physical, and functional outcomes (+1 SD p-tau181: β MMSE = -0.055, 95% CI -0.067 to -0.043, β FCSRT = -0.034, 95% CI -0.043 to -0.025, β fluency = -0.029, 95% CI -0.038 to -0.020, β SPPB = -0.040, 95% CI -0.057 to -0.022, and β 4IADL = -0.115, 95% CI 0.091-0.140. +1 SD NfL: β MMSE = -0.039, 95% CI -0.053 to -0.025, β FCSRT = -0.022, 95% CI -0.032 to -0.012, β fluency = -0.014, 95% CI -0.024 to -0.004, and β 4IADL = 0.077, 95% CI 0.048-0.105). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,938 Evidence: moderate

In this large cohort study of elderly subjects, the degree of dVRS appears independently associated with age, hypertension, volume of white matter hyperintensities, and lacunar infarctions. dVRS should be considered as another MRI marker of cerebral small vessel disease in the elderly with regional variations in their severity. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This comprehensive analysis demonstrated that the variance in AD blood biomarker concentrations was mainly explained by age, with minor contributions from cognition, brain atrophy, and genetics, conversely to CSF measures. 3 key findings →

Participants: 2,323 Evidence: low

Although many studies have found a cross-sectional relation between depression and dementia or depressive symptomatology and cognitive functioning, the direction of the association is still unknown. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,600 Evidence: moderate

Ninety-seven men (incidence rate: 14.4/1,000) and 183 women (Incidence rate: 19.0/1,000) developed dementia during 8 years of follow-up. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

↑ 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