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.

Vision impairment and cognitive decline among older adults: a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. BMJ open 2022-01-06

Our systematic review indicates that a majority of studies examining the vision-cognition relationship report that VI is associated with more cognitive decline, cognitive impairment or dementia among older adults. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 100 Evidence: high

Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is regarded as the first clinical manifestation in the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are associated with loss of nuclear transactive response DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Association of Combined Healthy Lifestyle Factors With Incident Dementia in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2022-09-14

We aimed to investigate whether the increased risk of dementia among individuals with diabetes can be offset by a broad combination of healthy lifestyle factors. 4 key findings →

Participants: 167,946 Evidence: moderate

The relationship between mild behavioral impairment (MBI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) is intricate and still not well investigated. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,129 Evidence: moderate

BackgroundLecanemab reduces amyloid levels and modestly slows cognitive decline in a large cohort of early Alzheimer's disease (AD) but lacks real-world safety data in Chinese population. 3 key findings →

Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate

Whether or not there is targeted pharmacotherapy for dementia, an active and healthy lifestyle that includes physical activity (PA) may be a better option than medication for preventing dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 484,169 Evidence: low

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis overlapping with frontotemporal dementia (ALS/FTD) is a fatal and currently untreatable disease characterized by rapid cognitive decline and paralysis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Systematic review of atorvastatin for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neural regeneration research 2012-06-01

Two randomized controlled trials were included, one was scale A, and the other was scale B. The rates of abnormal liver function, withdrawal from treatment, and withdrawal due to adverse effects were higher in the treatment group (OR = 7.86, 95%CI: 2.50-24.69; OR = 4.70, 95%CI: 2.61-8.44; and OR = 5.47, 95%CI: 3.01-9.94; respectively) compared with the placebo group. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 710 Evidence: high

Bibliometric analysis is crucial in identifying research gaps and trends and guiding future studies to address unmet needs in understanding and modeling human physiology and pathology. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: low

Chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA) is a lysosome-dependent selective degradation pathway implicated in the pathogenesis of cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our findings highlight sexual dimorphism in the behavior, neuropathology, and plasma proteins in tau P301S transgenic AD mice, indicating that the use of male P301S transgenic mice may be more suitable for assessing anti-phosphorylated tau therapeutic strategies for AD and related tauopathies, and the MIP-3α may be a new potential plasma biomarker. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The epsilon4 allele of apolipoprotein E (apoE) is associated with increased risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and poor outcome after brain injury. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study reports the prevalence of CF among elderly hypertensive residents of a community in Inner Mongolia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional 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 27,380 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