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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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.
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 426–450 of 1,004 studies in Prevention and risk(page 18 of 41)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.
What “Prevention and risk” covers
Prevention and risk — What might lower the risk of dementia — and what happened when those things were properly tested.
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.
Sixty-six studies met inclusion criteria for the relationship between physical activity and functional independence, and 34 were included with a cognitive function outcome. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·BMC medicine·2017-01-18
Quantitative imaging of cerebral blood flow and metabolism by positron emission tomography can differentiate between vascular dementia and degenerative dementia and show the interaction between vascular and metabolic changes. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2019-01-17
Nearly half of all adults older than 60 years of age report sleep disturbance, as characterised either by reports of insomnia complaints with daytime consequences, dissatisfaction with sleep quality or quantity, or the diagnosis of insomnia disorder. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·JAMA·2012-07-01
Delirium (acute confusion) complicates 15% to 50% of major operations in older adults and is associated with other major postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, poor functional recovery, institutionalization, dementia, and death. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2012-11-06
These findings contribute to the understanding of preclinical familial Alzheimer's disease and help set the stage for assessment of amyloid-modifying treatments in the prevention of familial Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Psychology and aging·2009-03-01
Resource accounts of behavioral aging postulate that age-associated impairments within and across intellectual and sensory domains reflect, in part, a common set of senescent alterations in the neurochemistry and neuroanatomy of the aging brain. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-05-13
The late-life dementia risk index accurately stratified older adults into those with low, moderate, and high risk of developing dementia. 2 key findings →
Central auditory speech-processing deficits may be an early manifestation of probable Alzheimer's disease and may precede the onset of dementia diagnosis by many years. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·JAMA·2025-01-01
AF is associated with significantly increased risk of stroke, heart failure, myocardial infarction, dementia, chronic kidney disease, and mortality. 4 key findings →
The study confirms the occurrence of increased incidence of chronic illnesses in long-term cancer survivors attributable to underlying lifestyle and/or cancer treatments. 2 key findings →
In the context of global ageing, the prevalence of neurodegenerative diseases and dementia, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), is increasing. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Obesity Facts·2025-11-18
The introduction of incretin mimetics (IMs), including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) such as liraglutide and semaglutide, as well as dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor co-agonists (GLP-1/GIP RAs) like tirzepatide, has revolutionized obesity treatment. 2 key findings →
During an average follow-up period of 14.5 years, a total of 9520 (81.1%) participants had used NSAIDs at any given time, and 2091 participants developed dementia. 5 key findings →
There is substantial evidence supporting the neuroprotective effects of the MIND diet in neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a nutritional intervention (NI) with this diet on multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Circulation·1999-05-11
C oronary heart disease (CHD) is the single leading cause of death and a significant cause of morbidity among American women. 1 Risk factors for CHD in women are well documented. 2 Compelling data from epidemiological studies and randomized clinical trials show that CHD is largely preventable.
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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.