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.

Exercise plus behavioral management in patients with Alzheimer disease: a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. JAMA 2003-10-01

Exercise training for patients with Alzheimer disease combined with teaching caregivers how to manage behavioral problems may help decrease the frailty and behavioral impairment that are often prevalent in patients with Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial 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

The study cohort included 568 patients (289 [50.9%] men; mean [SD] age, 70.5 [16.1] years) who died in the hospital or were discharged to hospice. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 568 Evidence: moderate

Practice Guidelines for the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2000-08-01

The of establishing the diagnosis of pneumonia and cause is with the antibiotic studies for of community-acquired studies for of community-acquired The diagnosis of is based on a of clinical and laboratory The diagnosis of is and and as well as disease, congestive heart failure, with pneumonia and cases of and are of do not require and are the of antibiotic antimicrobial is usually for and a chest radiography is usually to establish the diagnosis of examination to or is for detecting pneumonia Chest radiography is considered is for the etiologic the and or conditions. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

We estimated how all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality in people with diabetes have changed over time, how the composition of the mortality burden has changed, and how this composition compared with that of the non-diabetes population. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 907 Evidence: moderate

There were 140,055 subjects in the 1998-1999 cohort and 146,328 in the 1999-2000 cohort, of which 55.5 percent and 59.7 percent, respectively, were immunized. 4 key findings →

Participants: 140,055 Evidence: moderate

Reduced exposure to environmental factors that contribute to cancer risk, tumour-suppressor genes on chromosome 21, or a slower rate of replication or higher likelihood of apoptosis in Down's syndrome cells, could be possible reasons for paucity of cancer in people with Down's syndrome. 4 key findings →

Participants: 17,897 Evidence: low

This study is the first to document concurrent prevalence of primary dementia subtypes among this US population. 1 key finding →

Participants: 21 Evidence: low

Higher prevalence of SCD in SGM adults highlights the importance of ensuring inclusive screenings, interventions, care services, and resources for SGM adults. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

On November 8-9, 2007, a meeting entitled "Setting a Public Health Research Agenda for Down Syndrome" was held to review current knowledge, identify gaps, and develop priorities for future public health research related to Down syndrome. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In a population-based sample, increasing gliosis precedes development of Alzheimer lesions. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The study population consisted of 54 million Medicare data Fee-for-Service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage enrollees aged ≥ 65; 5.3 million beneficiaries were diagnosed with ADRD, and 16.2% (n = 861,337) of beneficiaries diagnosed with ADRD resided in rural America. 4 key findings →

Participants: 861,337 Evidence: low

The three modifications had comparable performance when the number of deaths was large relative to the denominator and the age distribution was as in the standard population. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Promoting Healthy Aging: Public Health as a Leader for Reducing Dementia Risk

⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Public Policy & Aging Report 2023-07-15

It is estimated that for people aged 65 years and older, the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease was nearly double for women compared with men (Weinstein et al., 2012). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Deaths from Alzheimer’s Disease — United States, 1999–2014

⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2017-05-25

Alzheimer's disease (Alzheimer's), an ultimately fatal form of dementia, is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for 3.6% of all deaths in 2014 (1,2). 3 key findings →

Participants: 93,541 Evidence: low

↑ 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