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 551–575 of 1,004 studies in Prevention and risk(page 23 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.
Moderate intake of unsaturated fats at midlife is protective, whereas a moderate intake of saturated fats may increase the risk of dementia and AD, especially among ApoE epsilon4 carriers. 1 key finding →
Caffeine has well-known short-term stimulating effects on central nervous system, but the long-term impacts on cognition have been less clear. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·JAMA·2017-12-01
Although the use of hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women is associated with some benefits, there are also well-documented harms. 3 key findings →
Time is an under-recognised social determinant of brain health, and is potentially as important as education or income for dementia risk. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Psychological Science·2003-03-01
A meta-analytic study was conducted to examine the hypothesis that aerobic fitness training enhances the cognitive vitality of healthy but sedentary older adults.
Increasing oily fish intake has been proposed as a strategy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention, but evidence for long-term benefit remains limited. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Hippocampus·2009-10-01
Deterioration of the hippocampus occurs in elderly individuals with and without dementia, yet individual variation exists in the degree and rate of hippocampal decay. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia and typically manifests through a progressive loss of episodic memory and cognitive function, subsequently causing language and visuospatial skills deficiencies, which are often accompanied by behavioral disorders such as apathy, aggressiveness and depression. 1 key finding →
"The 2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society" (NAMS) updates "The 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society" and identifies future research needs. 5 key findings →
Recent research has linked age-related hearing loss to impaired performance across cognitive domains and increased risk for dementia diagnosis. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·JAMA·1987-03-01
The prevention of fall-related injuries in patients with Alzheimer-type dementia (ATD) is hampered by an incomplete understanding of their causes. 5 key findings →
As the population ages due to demographic trends and gains in life expectancy, the incidence and prevalence of dementia increases, and the need to understand the etiology and pathogenesis of dementia becomes ever more urgent. 5 key findings →
A projected doubling in the global population of people aged ≥60 y by the year 2050 has major health and economic implications, especially in developing regions. 1 key finding →
Building infrastructures for international collaborations is necessary for managing the worldwide public health problem of AD and dementia. 1 key finding →
This article summarizes the presentations and recommendations of the tenth annual American Geriatrics Society and National Institute on Aging Bench-to-Bedside research conference, "Sensory Impairment and Cognitive Decline," on October 2-3, 2017, in Bethesda, Maryland. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2016-07-20
The A(+)N(-) and A(+)N(+) groups had significantly faster cognitive decline than the A(-)N(-) group (0·08 SD per year for AIBL-Preclinical AD Cognitive Composite [PACC]; p Interpretation Brain amyloidosis, a surrogate marker of Alzheimer's disease pathology, is a risk factor for cognitive decline and for progression from preclinical stages to symptomatic stages of the disease, with neurodegeneration acting as a compounding factor. 2 key findings →
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.