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.

A polygenic score (PGS) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) was derived recently from data on genome-wide significant loci in European ancestry populations. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Evidence: high

Diet Quality and Dementia Risk in Older Adults With Alzheimer Pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-06-01

Over a mean follow-up of 8.4 years (range, Conclusions and relevance This cohort study of older adults found that adherence to a dietary pattern with lower inflammatory potential was associated with lower dementia risk among individuals with AD pathology and broader neurobiological risk. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,865 Evidence: early

Poor social health is likely associated with cognitive decline and risk of dementia; however, studies show inconsistent results. 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,514 Evidence: low

Per 1-m/s increase in ePWV was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 1.51(1.30-1.75) for dementia and 1.58(1.33-1.89) for Alzheimer's disease (AD), and with an MMSE score decline (adjusted β-coefficient = -0.36; 95% CI = -0.52 to -0.21). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,857 Evidence: moderate

In multi-adjusted models, higher adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet was associated with higher total mean cortical thickness, and thicker cortex in Alzheimer's disease-signature regions, while a higher adherence to the MeDi was associated with better cognitive performance. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 615 Evidence: moderate

Cerebral white matter lesions are frequently observed on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in elderly people and are associated with stroke and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,625 Evidence: low

Meat Consumption and Cognitive Health by APOE Genotype

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-03-19

Among 2157 older adults without dementia (mean [SD] age 71.2 [9.2] years; 1337 female [62.0%]), 1680 participants had longitudinal cognition data and 569 participants (26.4%) had APOE34/44 genotypes. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,680 Evidence: moderate

The risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) probably results from an interaction between genetic and environmental factors. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,449 Evidence: low

Self-reported sleep problems may increase the risk for dementia, and depressive symptoms may explain this relationship. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

14 IPD-Work studies were assessed and six studies were excluded due to missing outcome data and unavailable data for pooling, resulting in the inclusion of eight studies with 124 909 participants. 5 key findings →

Participants: 909 Evidence: low

Accelerated progression from mild cognitive impairment to dementia in people with diabetes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Diabetes 2010-08-16

Diabetes and pre-diabetes substantially accelerate the progression from MCI to dementia, and anticipate dementia occurrence by more than 3 years in people with MCI. 3 key findings →

Participants: 302 Evidence: moderate

Knowledge on survival in dementia is crucial for patients and public health planning. 4 key findings →

Participants: 15,209 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia are a global public health priority, and prevention has been highlighted as a pivotal component in managing the dementia epidemic. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Individuals with neuropsychiatric, cardiovascular, and sensory impairment/cancer patterns are at increased risk for dementia and APOE ε4, and inflammation may further increase the risk. 3 key findings →

Participants: 2,478 Evidence: low

Outdoor activity is linked to lower dementia risk, particularly in those living in more accessible GS. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 187,724 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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