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

Showing 25,901–25,925 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 1037 of 1086) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

These findings highlight potential access and quality-of-care issues in PR, with implications for Medicare Advantage benchmarks. 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,965 Evidence: low

Participants were 1060 Veterans (response rate of 20.14%), mean age of 68.39 (SD=8.52) years, 59.0% Caucasian, 69.2% non‐Hispanic, 95.8% male, 12.0% screened positive for MCI and 15.6% for dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

's < 0.05). The findings suggest that neighborhood-level social deprivation might influence memory and motor status, primarily through its impact on motor brain health. 1 key finding →

Participants: 22 Evidence: low

Research on Area Deprivation Index (ADI) suggests that the built environment and neighborhood stressors (e.g., violent crime incidents) play a role in later-life cognitive function. 4 key findings →

Participants: 147 Evidence: low

Patient satisfaction outcomes range from 71 - 100% with service intervention outcomes favourably indicating the direct impact of the service, which are unmeasurable to the older adult living with dementia, and include increases in: (i) Confidence - 90%; (ii) Mood - 50% and (iii) open to talking through difficulties encountered - 87%. 3 key findings →

Participants: 67,744 Evidence: low

Participants racialized as Black living in a county with a history of lynching, disproportionate police killings, and disproportionate jail and prison incarceration were 2.8 (95%CI [-0.003, 5.834]) times more likely to have at least one incident of cognitive impairment between 2008-2020 compared to participants racialized as Black living in a county with a history of lynching and disproportionate police killings but not disproportionate incarceration. 3 key findings →

Participants: 185 Evidence: low

Compared to those in rural areas, participants who resided in urban areas during young adulthood had lower late midlife ADI (β = -0.85, p < .05), and better executive function (β = 0.19), processing speed (β = 0.24), and verbal fluency (β = 0.30) (ps < .05) in older adulthood. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The current study provides opportunities for safer approaches that using compounds derived from plants and links it to nanotechnology, could be used in the pharmaceutical industry to treat Alzheimer’s disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The NfL assay met analytical criteria, with precision demonstrating coefficients of variation <3% across runs, a lower limit of quantification of 3.10 pg/mL, linearity with <12% deviation, and <10% interference. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Hierarchical linear regression was used to assess an incremental contribution of the set of inflammatory markers’ PRS to explaining VF variance compared to the null model. 5 key findings →

Participants: 135 Evidence: low

Zusammenfassung Die Alzheimer Krankheit (AD) ist eine schwere und fortschreitende neurodegenerative Erkrankung des Gehirns, die bislang mit primär nur symptomatisch wirksamen medikamentösen und nicht-medikamentösen Therapieformen als Standardtherapie behandelt wird. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

To determine the degree to which patients with early Alzheimer disease (AD) being evaluated for anti-amyloid antibody therapies (AATs) adhere to optimal brain-health/lifestyle recommendations. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

In 2022, 726 patients were included. The average age was 82.2 years, with a majority of women (68.5%). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 726 Evidence: moderate

Metabolic signals and innate immune activation in obesity and exercise

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Exercise immunology review 2015-01-01

The combination of a sedentary lifestyle and excess energy intake has led to an increased prevalence of obesity which constitutes a major risk factor for several co-morbidities including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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