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.

Vascular cognitive impairment without dementia is very common among the aged and tends to progress to dementia, but there have been no proper large-scale intervention trials dedicated to it. 4 key findings →

Participants: 281 Evidence: high

Hippocampal morphological change is one of the main hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 261 Evidence: moderate

Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is regarded as the first clinical manifestation in the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Overall age-adjusted and sex-adjusted prevalence was estimated to be 6·0% (95% CI 5·8-6·3) for dementia, 3·9% (3·8-4·1) for Alzheimer's disease, 1·6% (1·5-1·7) for vascular dementia, and 0·5% (0·5-0·6) for other dementias. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Accumulating >300 min/week of MVPA, whether concentrated within 1-2 days or distributed evenly across the week, was associated with a decreased risk of dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 91,512 Evidence: moderate

It could be of great improvement for the use of the MMSE in dementia screening in Chinese elderly population. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 9,629 Evidence: low

In the machine learning verification, the identification accuracy of SCD, aMCI, d-AD from NC was higher when fused ALFF and fALFF features (76.44, 81.94, and 91.83%, respectively) than only using ALFF or fALFF features. 5 key findings →

Participants: 44 Evidence: low

The trend changes in the hippocampus subfields and further illustrates that SCD is the preclinical stage of AD earlier than aMCI. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The rigorous methodology of the study will hopefully move forward the scientific evaluation of traditional Chinese medicine in treatment of VaD. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 372 Evidence: high

Rich club disturbances of the human connectome from subjective cognitive decline to Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Theranostics 2018-05-11

We demonstrated that rich club organization was disrupted, with reduced structural connectivity among rich club nodes, in aMCI and d-AD patients but remained stable in SCD patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 62 Evidence: low

Vascular cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) is a major heterogeneous brain disease caused by multiple factors, and it is the second most common type of dementia in the world. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Among 558 amnestic MCI participants (168 ChEI users), ChEI users exhibited higher risk of progression to AD dementia (hazard ratio = 1.77, 95% confidence interval: 1.15 to 2.73, p = 0.001). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The global age-standardized prevalence of AD and other dementias increased from 672 (95% uncertainty interval: 589 to 764) per 100,000 population in 1990 to 694 (603 to 794) per 100,000 population in 2021, with AAPCs of 0.09% (95% confidence interval: 0.06% to 0.11%). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

SSRI treatment showed no significant effect on AD dementia progression (hazard ratio = 1.64, 95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 4.38) or cognitive trajectories, regardless of AD pathology. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The current study aimed to investigate the effects of group reminiscence therapy on cognitive function, depression, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and activities of daily living in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 45 Evidence: high

Observational studies strongly supported the association of low levels of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) and cognitive impairment or dementia in aging populations. 4 key findings →

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