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.

The proposed approach offers a fully automated identification of MCI and dementia based on a recorded neuropsychological test, providing an opportunity to develop a remote screening tool that could be adapted easily to any language. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,084 Evidence: low

This proof-of-concept study demonstrates that automated deep learning-driven processing of audio recordings of neuropsychological testing performed on individuals recruited within a community cohort setting can facilitate dementia screening. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

This article focuses on the effects of operational differences in case ascertainment on estimates of prevalence and incidence of cognitive impairment and/or dementia of the Alzheimer type. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Identifying nutrition- and lifestyle-based risk factors for cognitive impairment and dementia may aid future primary prevention efforts. 4 key findings →

Participants: 104 Evidence: moderate

Mind Diet Adherence and Cognitive Performance in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2021-01-01

Adherence to the Mediterranean-DASH for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet has previously been associated with cognitive decline and dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,584 Evidence: low

Traumatic brain injury has been associated with increased risk of Parkinson disease and parkinsonism, and parkinsonism and Lewy body disease (LBD) can occur with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). 3 key findings →

Participants: 269 Evidence: low

The Petersen/Winblad criteria classified 34% of participants as having MCI while the Jak/Bondi criteria classified 24% as MCI. 3 key findings →

Participants: 58 Evidence: low

Cardiac index is associated with brain aging: the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Circulation 2010-08-02

Although observational data cannot establish causality, our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that decreasing cardiac function, even at normal cardiac index levels, is associated with accelerated brain aging. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

On long-term follow-up (median 15 years; minimum-maximum, 0-20), participants developed cardiometabolic disease (hypertension [1255 events]; diabetes [381 events]), chronic kidney disease (529 events), dementia (235 events), cardiovascular disease (684 events) a 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cerebral microbleeds and risk of incident dementia: the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2017-03-06

Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) are MRI markers attributed to the most common cerebral angiopathies in the elderly and in patients with dementia: hypertensive and cerebral amyloid angiopathy. 4 key findings →

Participants: 85 Evidence: low

The long-term consequences of repetitive head impacts have been described since the early 20th century. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Framingham Brain Donation Program: neuropathology along the cognitive continuum

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Current Alzheimer research 2012-07-01

The Framingham Heart Study has enrolled 3 generations of participants, the original cohort (gen 1) enrolled in 1948, the offspring cohort (gen 2) enrolled in 1971 and the third generation enrolled in 2002. 4 key findings →

Participants: 59 Evidence: moderate

With the top 20 acoustic features, our framework achieved classification accuracies of 62.2% (EER: 0.3335) on the FHS dataset for NC, MCI, and DE differentiation, and 63.7% (EER: 0.1796) on the DBD dataset for NC and MCI differentiation, using obfuscated speech files. 5 key findings →

Participants: 128 Evidence: low

Long sleep was associated with reduced overall cognitive function (β ± standard error = -0.25 ± 0.07, p < 0.001), with strongest effects in those with depressive symptoms using (-0.74 ± 0.30, p = 0.017) and not using antidepressants (-0.60 ± 0.26, p = 0.024). 5 key findings →

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