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.

MAF supplementation improved cognitive function, especially after 6 months, in elderly people undergoing rehabilitation. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: low

Adherence to MIND Diet, Genetic Susceptibility, and Incident Dementia in Three US Cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Nutrients 2022-07-03

Adherence to Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) may lower the risk of dementia by impacting immunity and cholesterol, which are pathways also implicated by genome-wide association studies of Alzheimer’s Dementia (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 2,449 Evidence: low

Diet, Exercise, and Lifestyle in Glaucoma: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-10-27

Glaucoma is a major ocular neurodegenerative disease and a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide, with prevalence projected to exceed 110 million by 2040. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

Nutrition and Lifestyle Interventions in Managing Dyslipidemia and Cardiometabolic Risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-02-23

Dyslipidemia, characterized by abnormal blood lipid levels, is a major public health concern due to its association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and other cardiometabolic disorders. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of risk factors, including abdominal obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, dyslipidemia (intended as an increase in triglyceride levels and a reduction in HDL cholesterol levels), and elevated fasting glucose, that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Gut Microbiota Modulation Through Mediterranean Diet Foods: Implications for Human Health

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-03-08

The Mediterranean diet (MD) is widely recognized for its health benefits, particularly in modulating gut microbiota composition and reducing the risk of metabolic, cardiovascular, and neurodegenerative diseases. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Lifestyle Medicine for Obesity in the Era of Highly Effective Anti-Obesity Treatment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-07-21

Despite recent advances in the treatment of obesity, lifestyle medicine remains foundational to the treatment of individuals with obesity, regardless of the modality chosen by the patient with the guidance of the clinician they are working with, including in conjunction with, as appropriate, anti-obesity medications and metabolic surgery. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive decline is closely associated with biological aging and with interconnected processes, including chronic low-grade inflammation, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and cellular senescence. 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

(cobalamin)-dependent pathways. Supplementation of B vitamins has been shown to effectively reduce plasma homocysteine levels. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Adherence to Mediterranean Diet and Implications for Cardiovascular Risk Prevention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-06-12

Significant correlations emerged between higher MEDAS scores and BMI (r = −0.53, p < 0.01), FM% (r = −0.49, p < 0.01), VAT (r = −0.63, p < 0.01), and cIMT (r = −0.88, p < 0.01). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mediterranean Diet, Polyphenols, and Neuroprotection: Mechanistic Insights into Resveratrol and Oleuropein

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-12-16

Epidemiological studies suggest that higher MedDiet adherence is associated with slower cognitive decline, reduced conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease, and better motor and non-motor outcomes in Parkinson’s disease. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review 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