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.

Decades of research have revealed numerous risk factors for mental disorders beyond genetics, but their consistency and magnitude remain uncer-tain. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 176 Evidence: high

A total of 19 reviews containing 37 meta-analyses were included umbrella review. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 19 Evidence: high

We analyzed 1,240 MRIs from 473 patients (age: 69.2 ± 7.4 [range: 49-87]; 32.8% women). 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,240 Evidence: moderate

A systematic review was conducted to identify risk factors associated with the onset and progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 65 Evidence: high

Failure to consider vascular cognitive impairment without dementia underestimates the prevalence of impairment and the risk for adverse outcomes associated with vascular cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,008 Evidence: moderate

Physical activity and risk of cognitive impairment and dementia in elderly persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2001-03-01

Regular physical activity could represent an important and potent protective factor for cognitive decline and dementia in elderly persons. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Parkinson's disease has a long prodromal stage with various subclinical motor and non-motor manifestations; however, their evolution in the years before Parkinson's disease is diagnosed is unclear. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Risk of Dementia in Individuals With Emergency Department Visits or Hospitalizations Due to Cannabis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-06-01

Individuals with cannabis use severe enough to require hospital-based care were at increased risk of a new dementia diagnosis compared with those with all-cause hospital-based care or the general population. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 6,086,794 Evidence: moderate

In our training set, people with Parkinson's disease, multiple system atrophy, and dementia with Lewy bodies had lower CSF α-synuclein concentrations than patients with Alzheimer's disease and other neurological disorders. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Early metformin initiation was not associated with incident dementia in older adults newly diagnosed with diabetes. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 34,700 Evidence: null result

Molecular genetic studies of familial cases of FTLD-U have shown that mutations in the progranulin (PGRN) gene are a major genetic cause of FTLD-U. Thus, familial TDP-43 proteinopathy is associated with defects in multiple genes, and molecular genetics is required in these cases to correctly identify the causative gene defect. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the intention-to-treat analysis, dementia risk was not different between GLP1-RA and DPP4i initiators (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87–1.04; rates: 6.29 versus 6.64 per 1000 person-years; mean follow-up: 6.54 years); however, continuous GLP1-RA versus DPP4i use was associated with a 21% lower risk (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64–0.97; rates: 3.64 versus 4.82; mean follow-up: 2.71 years). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 107,424 Evidence: moderate

Early cerebral small vessel disease and brain volume, cognition, and gait

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2015-02-01

Covert cerebrovascular disease and its consequences on cognitive and gait performance and brain atrophy are manifest in some clinically asymptomatic persons as early as the 5th decade of life. 3 key findings →

Participants: 803 Evidence: low

Use of Feeding Tubes Among Hospitalized Older Adults With Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-02-20

Among 143 331 older adults with dementia (83 536 [58.3%] female; mean [SD] age, 83.8 [7.5] years), 1312 (0.9%) received a feeding tube in hospital and 142 019 (99.1%) did not. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

A multinational cohort study of trends in survival following dementia diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Communications Medicine 2025-05-28

Data from 1,272,495 individuals, with the mean age at diagnosis ranging from 76.8 years (South Korea) to 82.9 years (Germany), show that the overall median length of survival following recorded diagnosis ranges from 2.4 years (New Zealand) to 7.9 years (South Korea). 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,272,495 Evidence: moderate

A prospective analysis of risk factors for Alzheimer's disease was a major objective of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging, a nationwide, population-based study. 3 key findings →

Participants: 194 Evidence: low

The Evolution of Randomized Clinical Trial Designs to Assess Therapeutics in Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA network open 2025-08-01

A substantial difference in the type of therapeutics researched was observed, with anti-amyloid and anti-tau RCTs being more likely to be funded by the pharmaceutical industry compared with neurotransmitter or other RCTs (anti-amyloid or anti-tau, 68 of 71 [95.8%]; neurotransmitter, 52 of 69 [77.6%]; other, 33 of 52 [63.5%]). 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 203 Evidence: high

Individuals with dementia and their care partners often report dissatisfaction with the disclosure process due to insufficient information and support. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review 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