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 976–1,000 of 1,004 studies in Prevention and risk(page 40 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.
CD28 molecule expression on the surface of T cells plays a critical role in upregulation of various cytokines synthesis and T-helper (Th) cell proliferation and differentiation. 4 key findings →
The very long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) (C18–C22) and n‐3 Omega PUFAs are apparently widely accepted as a part of modern nutrition because of their beneficial effects on metabolism. 2 key findings →
It was first demonstrated that the differentiation and functioning of cultured brain cells requires not only ALA, but also the very long polyunsaturated omega-3 (DHA) and omega-6 carbon chains. 4 key findings →
Diet and specific nutritional factors, alone and in combination with other lifestyle approaches, have an important role in decreasing the risk for dementia. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-21
Respondents who reported no difficulty deciding (DECIDE = 2) had substantially lower odds of SCD than those who reported difficulty (DECIDE = 1; aOR approximately 0.13; FDR < 0.05). 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-22
BackgroundThe brain age gap (BAG), the difference between neuroimaging-predicted and chronological age, captures inter-individual variation in brain aging. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-25
We examined whether their metabolomic profiles also differed and whether subtype-related metabolic patterns were associated with dementia, stroke, and all-cause mortality. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-25
In the fully adjusted Cox model, baseline statin exposure was associated with a lower risk of incident AMI (HR, 0.805; 95% CI, 0.731-0.887). 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-07
O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=113 SRC="FIGDIR/small/26361997v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (32K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1dac0d9org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@aaf8f2org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@be10a1org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@35c7be_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG BACKGROUNDThe effect of neurovascular health on cardiovascular outcomes is not well-known. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-14
Higher education (OR = 1.23, SE = 0.05, 95% CI = [1.10, 1.36], p < 0.001), female sex (OR = 1.30, SE = 0.09, 95% CI = [1.10, 1.55], p = 0.003), and lower age (OR = 0.67, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = [0.61, 0.73], p < 0.001) were associated with increased odds of SuperAger status. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-15
BackgroundLebanon is undergoing substantial demographic and social change, with older adults comprising approximately 10% of the population. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-26
Hearing loss is a potential risk factor for dementia, but public awareness of this link and its behavioral implications remain poorly understood. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-05
Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) is characterised by the progressive depletion of Acetylcholine (ACh), a neurotransmitter essential for cognition and synaptic communication. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-09-03
Metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) regulate glutamatergic transmission and have been implicated in diverse neuropsychiatric disorders, but human postmortem evidence remains fragmented. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-08-04
Neuroticism, a personality trait characterized by the predisposition to experience intense and frequent negative emotions, has been associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-07-27
Electronic health records linked documented glucosamine use to faster progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and poorer survival after dementia. 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.