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.

Over a long period of observation, no evidence was found that a specific AHM drug class was more effective than others in lowering risk of dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 31 Evidence: high

Among the 1453 participants in the Framingham dementia study sample, the mean (SD) age was 75 (7) years; 792 (54.5%) were female. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,453 Evidence: moderate

Dementia risk may be attenuated by physical activity (PA); however, the specific activity levels optimal for dementia prevention are unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,604 Evidence: moderate

Vascular risk at younger ages most strongly associates with current and future brain volume

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2018-09-19

Given the potential therapeutic effect of vascular disease control timing to reduce dementia risk, we investigated the age-related influences of vascular risk factor burden on brain structure throughout the lifespan. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,887 Evidence: moderate

One hundred sixteen participants consented and 93 (46 waitlist control, 47 intervention) were included in the analyses. 3 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 93 Evidence: null result

Of the 62 caregivers approached, 60 enrolled (96.7%), and 54 completed the study (90% retention). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

MBI may be an earlier marker of neurodegenerative disease than MCI, captured at the stage of subjective cognitive decline or before, raising the possibility that MBI represents a novel target for dementia clinical trials or prevention strategies. 3 key findings →

Participants: 9,931 Evidence: low

Association of Ideal Cardiovascular Health With Vascular Brain Injury and Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Stroke 2016-04-12

The American Heart Association developed the ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) index as a simple tool to promote CVH; yet, its association with brain atrophy and dementia remains unexamined. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,750 Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular health, genetic risk, and risk of dementia in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2020-07-20

We categorized CVH on the basis of the American Heart Association Ideal CVH Index and genetic risk through a genetic risk score (GRS) of common genetic variants and the APOE ε4 genotype in 1,211 Framingham Heart Study (FHS) offspring cohort participants. 4 key findings →

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

This research indicates that diet and exercise programs have the potential to improve aspects of cognition and mood in an aging population. 4 key findings →

Participants: 102 Evidence: high

Six key themes emerged: (1) challenges in daily care; (2) strain from behavioral and sleep disruptions; (3) difficulties in seeking help; (4) personal sacrifices of caregivers; (5) emotional burdens associated with caregiving, including comorbidity concerns of PwD; (6) limited dementia knowledge and essential caregiving skills. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Change in QoL (decreased, maintained or improved) was determined using a cross-tabulation test. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Four GPs and eleven physicians were interviewed, and four major themes emerged: (1) knowledge of best practices of BPSD management, (2) awareness of current challenges in BPSD management, (3) non-involvement, blame shifting and rationalisation: perceived reasons for the current challenges and (4) suggested solutions. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

There are many reasons why people experiencing incarceration may be predisposed to developing dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Structural, Functional and Cognitive Validation of a Deep-Learning MCI-to-AD Conversion Model in OASIS-3

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-10

BackgroundDeep-learning models predict mild cognitive impairment (MCI)-to-Alzheimers disease (AD) conversion from structural MRI with high accuracy. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 40 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 27,380 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