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.

Among sedentary older adults, a 24-month moderate-intensity physical activity program compared with a health education program did not result in improvements in global or domain-specific cognitive function. 5 key findings →

Participants: 818 Evidence: high

There is moderate-to-strong support that PA benefits cognitive functioning during early and late periods of the life span and in certain populations characterized by cognitive deficits. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Pulse pressure and pulse wave velocity, markers of arterial stiffness, have been associated with stroke, dementia, and lowered levels of cognitive function. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,749 Evidence: moderate

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

= 0.009). Significant differences in annualized changes in these FA and MD values were found depending on the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes and smoking. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,471 Evidence: moderate

MarkVCID2 enrolled 1883 individuals age 73.4 ± 7.5 years, 65.0% female, 24.2% Hispanic, and 27.1% non-Hispanic Black. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,883 Evidence: moderate

Adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet is associated with a lower risk for mortality, cognitive decline, and dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Although most falls do not result in injury, the fact that residents with dementia fall more often than their counterparts without dementia leaves them with a higher overall risk of sustaining injurious falls over time. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Definition and description of schizophrenia in the DSM-5

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Schizophrenia research 2013-06-22

Although dementia praecox or schizophrenia has been considered a unique disease for over a century, its definitions and boundaries have changed over this period and its etiology and pathophysiology remain elusive. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

The study included 1,028 participants (mean age at baseline 76.4 years; 47.6% female): 521 with ADP, 96 with LBP, and 411 with mixed AD-LBP. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,028 Evidence: moderate

The finding of higher mortality and worse mobility for nonwhite patients with hip fractures highlights the need for more research on race/ethnicity disparities in hip fracture care. 3 key findings →

Participants: 2,692 Evidence: moderate

We propose the following sequence of events in the development of neuropathologic changes of Alzheimer disease in Down syndrome: (1) intracellular accumulation of Abeta in neurons and astrocytes, (2) deposition of extracellular Abeta and formation of diffuse plaques, and (3) development of neuritic plaques and neurofibrillary tangles with activation of microglial cells. 1 key finding →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

Rich club disturbances of the human connectome from subjective cognitive decline to Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Theranostics 2018-05-11

We demonstrated that rich club organization was disrupted, with reduced structural connectivity among rich club nodes, in aMCI and d-AD patients but remained stable in SCD patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 62 Evidence: low

Overall, MMSE scores exhibited ceiling effects, poor test-retest reliability, limited sensitivity to subtle brain abnormalities, and a high rate of intrusion elsewhere in the neuropsychological battery. 5 key findings →

Participants: 99 Evidence: low

Seriously ill older adults, including those living with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), often receive disease-focused rehabilitative care in skilled nursing facilities (SNF) with little consideration for their palliative care (PC) needs. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 52 Evidence: low

Data available on the relationship between salivary function and specific drug therapy are sparse. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial 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