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.

Folates and aging: Role in mild cognitive impairment, dementia and depression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2015-05-02

In almost all tissues, including the brain, folates are required for one-carbon transfer reactions, which are essential for the synthesis of DNA and RNA nucleotides, the metabolism of amino acids and the occurrence of methylation reactions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive reserve and the neurobiology of cognitive aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2004-11-01

A hypothetical construct of "cognitive reserve" is widely used to explain how, in the face of neurodegenerative changes that are similar in nature and extent, individuals vary considerably in the severity of cognitive aging and clinical dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Vascular risk factor detection and control may prevent Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2010-04-10

The vascular hypothesis of Alzheimer disease (AD), first proposed by us in 1993, provides substantial evidence that suggests vascular risk factors (VRF) play a critical role in the development of cognitive decline and AD during aging. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Donanemab, another anti-Alzheimer's drug with risk and uncertain benefit

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2024-06-01

Based on "reducing amyloid plaques in the brain", the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated and full approval for two monoclonal anti-Alzheimer's antibodies, aducanumab and lecanemab, respectively. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Gut-brain relationship in dementia and Alzheimer's disease: Impact on stress and immunity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2025-07-23

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is increasingly recognized as a condition shaped not only by central nervous system pathology but also by complex, bidirectional interactions between the gut, brain, and immune system. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Age-related hearing loss and tinnitus, dementia risk, and auditory amplification outcomes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2019-09-23

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) or presbycusis, as the third leading cause of chronic disability in older adults, has been shown to be associated with predisposing cognitive impairment and dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD), first identified by Dr. Alois Alzheimer in 1906, has evolved from a rare presenile dementia to a global health crisis affecting over 58 million people as of 2020, with projections reaching 152 million by 2050. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disorder that leads to progressive cognitive decline and imposes a significant socio-economic burden. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Vascular cognitive impairment - Past, present, and future challenges

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2023-08-25

Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) is a lifelong process encompassing a broad spectrum of cognitive disorders, ranging from subtle or mild deficits to prodromal and fully developed dementia, originating from cerebrovascular lesions such as large and small vessel disease. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Emerging potential of cannabidiol in reversing proteinopathies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2020-11-09

The aberrant accumulation of disease-specific protein aggregates accompanying cognitive decline is a pathological hallmark of age-associated neurological disorders, also termed as proteinopathies, including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and multiple sclerosis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Biomarkers used in Alzheimer's disease diagnosis, treatment, and prevention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2021-12-18

Alzheimer's disease (AD), being the number one in terms of dementia burden, is an insidious age-related neurodegenerative disease and is presently considered a global public health threat. 1 key finding →

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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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