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.

Dietary patterns and risk of dementia: the Three-City cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Neurology 2007-11-01

Frequent consumption of fruits and vegetables, fish, and omega-3 rich oils may decrease the risk of dementia and Alzheimer disease, especially among ApoE epsilon 4 noncarriers. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 8,085 Evidence: moderate

Etanercept in Alzheimer disease: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Neurology 2015-05-01

This study showed that subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg/wk) was well tolerated in this small group of patients with Alzheimer disease dementia, but a larger more heterogeneous group needs to be tested before recommending its use for broader groups of patients. 4 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: high

Diabetes mellitus and the risk of dementia: The Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Neurology 1999-12-01

The diabetes attributable risk for dementia of 8.8% suggests that diabetes may have contributed to the clinical syndrome in a substantial proportion of all dementia patients. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 126 Evidence: moderate

Midlife vascular risk factor exposure accelerates structural brain aging and cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Neurology 2011-08-01

Our aim was to test the association of vascular risk factor exposure in midlife with progression of MRI markers of brain aging and measures of cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,352 Evidence: moderate

Naproxen and celecoxib do not prevent AD in early results from a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Neurology 2007-04-25

These results do not support the hypothesis that celecoxib or naproxen prevent Alzheimer dementia, at least within the early years after initiation of treatment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Effects of a gamma-secretase inhibitor in a randomized study of patients with Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Neurology 2006-02-01

LY450139 dihydrate, a gamma-secretase inhibitor, was studied in a randomized, controlled trial of 70 patients with Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 70 Evidence: high

In a proportion of patients, dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is associated with Alzheimer disease (AD) copathology, which is linked to accelerated cognitive decline and more extensive cortical atrophy. 5 key findings →

Participants: 45 Evidence: high

Nine phase 3 RCT cohorts from 8 eligible studies were identified, analyzing data from 6,315 patients. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,315 Evidence: high

Mild TBI and risk of Parkinson disease: A Chronic Effects of Neurotrauma Consortium Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Neurology 2018-04-18

Among military veterans, mTBI is associated with 56% increased risk of PD, even after adjusting for demographics and medical/psychiatric comorbidities. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 325,870 Evidence: moderate

Parkinson risk in idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder: preparing for neuroprotective trials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Neurology 2015-02-13

Using stratification with simply assessed markers, it is now not only possible, but practical to include patients with RBD in neuroprotective trials against Parkinson disease, multiple system atrophy, and dementia with Lewy bodies. 3 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 89 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive reserve and clinical progression in Alzheimer disease: A paradoxical relationship

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Neurology 2019-07-02

Among Aβ-positive individuals, greater CR related to attenuated clinical progression in predementia stages of AD, but accelerated cognitive decline after the onset of dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 175 Evidence: moderate

Studies of automobile accident frequency among drivers with AD have yielded conflicting results about the risk of accidents. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

In the precuneus, we observed an inverted U-shaped pattern of novelty-related activity across groups, with higher activity in SCD and MCI compared with HC, but not in patients with AD who showed relatively lower activity than MCI. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 499 Evidence: moderate

Increasing comorbidity and health services utilization in older adults with prior stroke

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Neurology 2016-10-19

Our findings demonstrate the importance of community-based patient-centered care strategies for stroke survivors that address their range of health needs and prevent more costly acute care use. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 29,673 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