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.

Modifiable vascular and lifestyle-related risk factors have been associated with dementia risk in observational studies. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 631 Evidence: high

The APOE ε4 carriers and noncarriers were not significantly different at baseline (except for serum cholesterol level). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high

The FINGER intervention was beneficial regardless of participants' characteristics and can thus be implemented in a large elderly population at increased risk for dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high

The FINGER is at the forefront of international collaborative efforts to solve the clinical and public health problems of early identification of individuals at increased risk of late-life cognitive impairment, and of developing intervention strategies to prevent or delay the onset of cognitive impairment and dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,200 Evidence: high

The association between BMI and dementia is likely to be attributable to two different processes: a harmful effect of higher BMI, which is observable in long follow-up, and a reverse-causation effect that makes a higher BMI to appear protective when the follow-up is short. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,894 Evidence: moderate

The non-linear function indicates that a higher dose is not necessarily better in multidomain interventions. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 749 Evidence: high

Existing studies have included a narrow range of infectious diseases, relied on short follow-up periods, and provided little evidence for whether the increased risk is limited to specific dementia subtypes or attributable to specific microbes rather than infection burden. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 490 Evidence: moderate

Ageing of the population, together with population growth, has brought along an ample increase in the number of older individuals living with dementia and disabilities. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Although loneliness and social isolation have been linked to an increased risk of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease and dementia, their association with the risk of severe infection is uncertain. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 905 Evidence: moderate

The trial occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 106 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease and coronary artery disease are common late-life chronic conditions and share multiple risk factors, including the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele. 4 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 1,177 Evidence: moderate

This trial found no benefit of 24-month multidomain intervention with focus on improvement in lifestyle and vascular risk factors on the incidence of poststroke cognitive decline in comparison with standard stroke care. 1 key finding →

Participants: 101 Evidence: high

The mean age was 70.9 years (standard deviation, 5.9), 57.2% were women, 40.6% were illiterate, and 88.3% were farmers. 2 key findings →

Participants: 5,765 Evidence: high

Circulating metabolites were consistently associated with cognition, dementia, and lifestyle factors, opening new avenues for prevention of cognitive decline and dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 25,872 Evidence: low

Childhood Lifestyle Behaviors and Mental Health Symptoms in Adolescence

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-02-14

Altogether, 187 adolescents (97 boys [51.9%]; mean age, 15.8 [0.4] years) had valid data on self-reported lifestyle behaviors, and 170 adolescents had valid data on device-assessed lifestyle behaviors. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study 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

Social isolation and loneliness have been associated with increased risk of dementia, but it is not known whether this risk is modified or confounded by genetic risk of dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 70 Evidence: low

Impact of frailty status on the effect of a multidomain lifestyle intervention on cognition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2025-02-01

Frailty status (prefrail/frail n = 520, robust n = 625) at baseline did not modify the effect of intervention on global cognition during the 2-year follow-up (P-value for frailty × intervention × time interaction > .05). 5 key findings →

Participants: 520 Evidence: high

Differences between predictors for dementia in younger old versus oldest old populations, as well as for dementia versus pathology, should be considered more carefully in future studies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 245 Evidence: moderate

At baseline, 219 participants (18%) had CF. The risk for developing CF at 2 years was higher in the control group (risk ratio [RR], 1.88, p = .003). 5 key findings →

Participants: 401 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