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.

Total numbers of global DALYs grew 6·1% (95% UI 4·0-8·1), from 2·64 billion (2·46-2·86) in 2010 to 2·80 billion (2·57-3·08) in 2023, but age-standardised DALY rates, which account for population growth and ageing, decreased by 12·6% (11·0-14·1), revealing large long-term health improvements. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Three survey rounds included 49 to 54 participants that agreed on VasCog-2 diagnostic criteria for preclinical, mild, and major dementia levels of vascular cognitive impairment (under the overarching term VCID). 5 key findings →

Participants: 49 Evidence: low

Dietary Patterns and Cognitive Health in Older Adults: A Systematic Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2019-01-01

While the role of diet and nutrition in cognitive health and prevention of dementia in older adults has attracted much attention, the efficacy of different dietary patterns remains uncertain. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: high

Longitudinal change in CSF biomarkers in autosomal-dominant Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Science translational medicine 2014-03-01

Clinicopathological evidence suggests that the pathology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) begins many years before the appearance of cognitive symptoms. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

A total of 346 of 374 (92.5%) intervention arm participants received some intervention (reach), and 305 of 374 (81.6%) attended ≥5 main sessions (predefined as adhering: dose). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 346 Evidence: high

Median follow-up was 7.5 years (interquartile range: 7.0 to 9.0 years), during this time 387 participants (0.8 %) were diagnosed with dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 47,371 Evidence: moderate

There is increasing evidence that subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in individuals with unimpaired performance on cognitive tests may represent the first symptomatic manifestation of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Earlier NH admission of Australian compared to U.K. and U.S. subjects may be due to differences in health care, NH systems, availability, and affordability. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

CogDrisk-ML outperformed CAIDE in the UK Biobank and Whitehall II cohorts; however, it provided similar C statistics in the ARIC dataset. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

In DIAD, clinical disease stage and BDNF Met66 were associated with cognitive impairment and levels of site-specific tau phosphorylation. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 527 Evidence: moderate

Physical and cognitive exercise may prevent or delay dementia in later life but the neural mechanisms underlying these therapeutic benefits are largely unknown. 3 key findings →

Participants: 100 Evidence: low

Incidence rates for MCI are higher than previously reported, particularly in men and for single-domain MCI; rates for amnestic and nonamnestic MCI were comparable. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Reduction in hippocampal and amygdala volume measured via structural magnetic resonance imaging is an early marker of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

The extent to which the pathophysiology of autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease corresponds to the pathophysiology of 'sporadic' late onset Alzheimer's disease is unknown, thus limiting the extrapolation of study findings and clinical trial results in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease to late onset Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 559 Evidence: low

Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are common in dementia and in predementia syndromes such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Visual hallucinations in Lewy body disease relate to Lewy bodies in the temporal lobe

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2002-02-01

Consensus opinion characterizes dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) as a progressive dementing illness, with significant fluctuations in cognition, visual hallucinations and/or parkinsonism. 4 key findings →

Participants: 29 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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