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.

Cerebral microbleeds are associated with worse cognitive function: the Rotterdam Scan Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2012-01-18

Cerebral microbleeds are frequently found in the general elderly population and may reflect underlying vascular disease, but their role in cognitive function is unknown. 4 key findings →

Participants: 3,979 Evidence: low

Retinopathy and risk of dementia: the Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2012-07-11

We investigated the associations between retinopathy and dementia and its subtypes Alzheimer disease (AD) and vascular dementia both cross-sectionally and prospectively in the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based cohort study. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 195 Evidence: moderate

Cerebral vasoreactivity (CVR) is a key factor in maintenance of continuous cerebral perfusion and a marker of (micro)vascular damage. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,629 Evidence: moderate

Unrecognized myocardial infarction in relation to risk of dementia and cerebral small vessel disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Stroke 2008-03-06

Men, but not women, with unrecognized myocardial infarction (MI) have an increased risk of cardiac events and stroke compared with those without MI or with recognized MI. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 613 Evidence: moderate

Atrophy of the hippocampus and amygdala on MRI in cognitively intact elderly people predicts dementia during a 6-year follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

We studied compliance with antihypertensive treatment in elderly patients with cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,979 Evidence: moderate

10-year trajectories of depressive symptoms and risk of dementia: a population-based study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. The lancet. Psychiatry 2016-04-29

Late-life depressive symptoms have been extensively studied for their relationship with incident dementia, but have been typically assessed at a single timepoint. 4 key findings →

Participants: 3,325 Evidence: moderate

Subclinical hyperthyroidism and the risk of dementia. The Rotterdam study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Clinical endocrinology 2000-12-01

Thyroid status was measured at baseline (1990-93), through assessment of serum antibodies to thyroid peroxidase (TPO-Abs, positive: >10 IU/ml), serum TSH levels, and when TSH was abnormal ( 4.0 mU/l), serum thyroxin levels (T4). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,843 Evidence: low

Greater fish and omega-3 (n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) intake may reduce dementia risk; however, previous studies have reported conflicting results, which were largely based on short-term follow-up. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,395 Evidence: moderate

Subjective complaints precede Parkinson disease: the rotterdam study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2006-01-09

Neuronal degeneration and dopamine loss in the preclinical phase of Parkinson disease may produce subtle complaints before clinically recognizable symptoms emerge. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,038 Evidence: moderate

Do nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs decrease the risk for Alzheimer's disease? The Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 1995-08-01

Based on reports that the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may reduce the risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD), we studied the cross-sectional relation between NSAID use and the risk for AD in a population-based study of disease and disability in older people. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 365 Evidence: low

Insulin and cognitive function in an elderly population. The Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Diabetes care 1997-05-01

An increase in postload insulin only in women was associated with a decrease in cognitive function (age-adjusted regression coefficient -0.10 per 50 mU/l insulin; 95% CI -0.16 to -0.04). 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,510 Evidence: low

↑ 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