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.

Study-level data from 14 studies, 2,310,330 individuals, and 102,174 dementia case patients were included. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,310,330 Evidence: high

A significant drug-placebo difference on the ADAS-Cog12 favoring GV-971 was present at each measurement time point, measurable at the week 4 visit and continuing throughout the trial. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 818 Evidence: high

Association of Ultraprocessed Food Consumption With Risk of Dementia: A Prospective Cohort Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Neurology 2022-07-27

In this prospective cohort study, higher consumption of UPF was associated with higher risk of dementia, whereas substituting unprocessed or minimally processed foods for UPF was associated with lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 72,083 Evidence: moderate

Intake of coffee alone or in combination with tea was associated with lower risk of poststroke dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 365,682 Evidence: moderate

The study consists of 25,186 patients (mean age = 63.0, interquartile range [IQR] of age = 15.1 years, male = 50%). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 25,186 Evidence: moderate

Higher cardiovascular risk burden may predict decline in episodic memory, working memory, and perceptual speed and is associated with neurodegeneration and vascular lesions in the brain. 4 key findings →

Participants: 378 Evidence: low

Accelerated progression from mild cognitive impairment to dementia in people with diabetes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Diabetes 2010-08-16

Diabetes and pre-diabetes substantially accelerate the progression from MCI to dementia, and anticipate dementia occurrence by more than 3 years in people with MCI. 3 key findings →

Participants: 302 Evidence: moderate

• Low ALPS index was significantly associated with high risk of MCI, and the risk of MCI decreased linearly with a higher ALPS index • High ALPS index was dose-dependently associated with a decreased progression from MCI to AD • High ALPS index may delay the MCI onset approximately 3.8 years among CN participants and delay MCI progression to AD by approximately 3.5 years in MCI group • Aβ in choroid plexus, tau in part of the cortex and executive function were partially mediate ALPS-AD association We aimed to explore the association between ALPS index and both risks of MCI from cognitively normal (CN) and incident AD progressed from MCI, as well as potential mediating factors. 1 key finding →

Participants: 519 Evidence: moderate

With the advancement of anti-amyloid treatments for Alzheimer disease, accurate assays for amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology are essential. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 431 Evidence: moderate

The mean (SD) age of the 4,631 participants was 67.6 (4.89) years, and 2579 (55.7%) were women. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,943 Evidence: low

The salience network (SN) serves to identify salient stimuli and to switch between the central executive network (CEN) and the default-mode network (DMN), both of which are impaired in Alzheimer's disease (AD)/amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Arterial spin labeling (ASL) magnetic resonance imaging uses arterial blood water as an endogenous tracer to measure cerebral blood flow (CBF). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The plasma PlGF level was significantly elevated in patients with SIVD compared with CUCs, and showed a high accuracy with an area under the curve of 0.893. 5 key findings →

Participants: 102 Evidence: moderate

This study aims to analyze temporal trends in the prevalence and disability-adjusted life year (DALY) burden of early-onset dementia (EOD) globally from 1990 to 2021 and assess the attributable burdens of modifiable risk factors. 2 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