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.

PD dementia (PDD) is associated with α-synuclein propagation, but coexistent Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology may coexist. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

As persons with HIV age, noninfectious comorbidities occur more frequently compared with persons without HIV. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 154 Evidence: high

The 2024 UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Archives of Osteoporosis 2025-09-08

Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment and intervention thresholds, management of vertebral fractures, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, including duration and monitoring of anti-resorptive therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, as well as models of care for fracture prevention. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), Lewy body diseases (LBD), and the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia (ALS-FTD) spectrum are defined by the accumulation of specific misfolded protein aggregates. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 2,600 Evidence: high

Combining physical exercise with cognitive training is a popular intervention in dementia prevention trials and guidelines. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The Mediterranean-style diet (MedDiet) involves substantial intake of fruits, vegetables, and fish, and a lower consumption of dairy, red meat, and sugars. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Overall estimates of the treatment effect were calculated by using a fixed-effects model, and statistical heterogeneity was measured by using a standard chi-squared statistic. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

In AD a clinical recommendation can be made for NEURO-AD TM system and for high-frequency rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) as probably effective protocols (B-level of evidence) and for anodal tDCS over the left DLPFC as a possibly effective. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Our findings suggest that VR training is an effective treatment for both people with MCI and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Our analyses support that MNPI could improve the global cognition in older adults with MCI. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

We found no definitive evidence on effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of specific interventions but studies were small and short term. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

However, further research is needed with studies using larger sample sizes, standardized measurement outcomes, and longer follow-up periods, to inform evidence-based recommendations. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Interventions using educational outreach, on-site education given alone or as part of an intervention package and pharmacist medication review may under certain circumstances reduce inappropriate drug use, but the evidence is of low quality. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The results from our meta-analysis suggest that the incidence of falls of older adults living in nursing homes is high, and the risk factors for falls are various. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

We conducted a systematic review of the use of quality of life (QoL) measures as outcome in pharmacological and nonpharmacologic intervention trials in patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment or dementia, and their proxies. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Functional imaging data indicate that the pathophysiology of schizophrenia reflects aberrant activity in, and integration of, the components of distributed circuits involving the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus and certain subcortical structures. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

↑ 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