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.

In elderly persons, antipsychotic drugs are clinically prescribed off-label for a number of disorders outside of their Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Professional caregivers may initiate ACP early if strategies carefully consider timing and family and patient receptiveness or reluctance, and are family and patient-centered. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 33 Evidence: high

We found no evidence to support the theory that natural variation in cumulative exposure to endogenous oestrogens across the reproductive period influences dementia incidence in late life. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The preponderance of epidemiologic and tissue compositional studies supports a protective effect of omega-3 EFA intake, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), in mood disorders. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Although the performance of the different methods still has room for improvement, the results are promising and this methodology has a great potential as a support tool for clinicians and healthcare professionals. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

There was some evidence that the use of smartphones and tablets could aid cognitive function in older adults without cognitive impairment, particularly executive function and processing speed. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 28 Evidence: high

The insular cortex is proposed to function as a central brain hub characterized by wide-spread connections and diverse functional roles. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 2,261 Evidence: high

Effects of ω-3 fatty acids on cognitive performance: a meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2012-02-03

Higher intake of omega-3 fatty acids (n-3 FAs) is associated with a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and milder forms of cognitive impairment (e.g. cognitive impairment no dementia [CIND]); however, findings from interventional trials are inconsistent. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 934 Evidence: high

The application of support vector machine classification (SVM) to combined information from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and [F18]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) has been shown to improve detection and differentiation of Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 21 Evidence: high

A total of 16 084 European adults from 8 cohort studies (mean age range, 56.9±12.3-82.1±4.2 years) of the European Eye Epidemiology (E3) consortium. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 16 Evidence: high

Plasma amyloid-β (Aβ) levels are increasingly studied as a potential, accessible marker of cognitive impairment and dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,201 Evidence: high

The heterogeneous patterns and severity of conditions produce distinctive cumulative effects for each individual.5 Multimorbidity is associated with many adverse consequences, including death, disability, institutionalization, greater use of healthcare resources, poorer quality of life, and higher rates of adverse effects of treatment or interventions.1 Comprehensive strategies for healthcare delivery that are not disease specific, as well as interventions that target geriatric syndromes common in older adults with multimorbidity, show promise for this population,5-9 although the best approaches to decision-making and clinical management of older adults with multimorbidity remain unclear. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The genetic component of early-onset Alzheimer disease (EOAD), accounting for ~10% of all Alzheimer's disease (AD) cases, is largely unexplained. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 19,668 Evidence: high

Social isolation and cognitive decline in older adults: a longitudinal study across 24 countries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. BMC Geriatrics 2025-10-14

Social isolation was significantly associated with reduced cognitive ability (pooled effect = -0.07, 95% CI = -0.08, -0.05), with consistently negative effects across memory, orientation, and executive ability. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 101,581 Evidence: high

The rare TREM2 R47H variant exerts only a modest effect on Alzheimer disease risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2014-09-03

Meta-analysis of the 2 family-based and the 5 case-control cohorts yielded a p value of 0.0029, while the overall summary estimate (using case-control data only) resulted in an odds ratio of 1.67 (95% confidence interval 0.95-2.92) for the association between the TREM2 R47H and increased AD risk. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Oral Health as a Risk Factor for Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2024-01-01

In patients with Alzheimer's disease pathophysiological changes of the brain that initiate the onset of Alzheimer's disease include accumulation of amyloid-β plaques and phosphorylation of tau-tangles. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,962 Evidence: high

Nonlinear dose-response relationship between exercise and cognitive improvement in Alzheimer's disease, with the optimal AE dose identified at 660 METs-min/week for enhancing cognitive function in AD. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,242 Evidence: early

Metformin might correlate with a lower dementia incidence in people with T2DM. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,463,100 Evidence: early

Improved insight into these pathomechanisms may allow to shed light on the role of Aβ deposition as a primary versus a secondary event in the complex pathogenesis of AD. 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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