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 4,026–4,050 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 162 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.

Oral benfotiamine is safe and potentially efficacious in improving cognitive outcomes among persons with MCI and mild AD. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: low

Possible association between PM2.5 and neurodegenerative diseases: A systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Environmental research 2021-12-31

Air pollution is one of the most serious environmental problems that afflict our planet and one of the greatest risk factors for human health. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 20 Evidence: high

Cerebrospinal fluid neurogranin was increased in patients with Alzheimer's disease dementia (P < 0.001), progressive mild cognitive impairment (P < 0.001) and stable mild cognitive impairment (P < 0.05) compared with controls, and in Alzheimer's disease dementia (P < 0.01) and progressive mild cognitive impairment (P < 0.05) compared with stable mild cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 95 Evidence: moderate

Assessment of 18F-PI-2620 as a Biomarker in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2020-11-01

Of 60 patients with PSP, 40 (66.7%) had RS (22 men [55.0%]; mean [SD] age, 71 [6] years; mean [SD] PSP rating scale score, 38 [15]; score range, 13-71) and 20 (33.3%) had PSP-non-RS (11 men [55.0%]; mean [SD] age, 71 [9] years; mean [SD] PSP rating scale score, 24 [11]; score range, 11-41). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 60 Evidence: low

Relation of DASH- and Mediterranean-like dietary patterns to cognitive decline in older persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2014-09-17

These findings support the hypothesis that both the DASH and Mediterranean diet patterns are associated with slower rates of cognitive decline in the same cohort of older persons. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 13 Evidence: moderate

In this large longitudinal investigation of generally healthy individuals Mediterranean diet was not found to be protective of cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,528 Evidence: moderate

Positive effects of computer-based cognitive training in adults with mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neuropsychologia 2012-04-21

Considering the high risk for individuals with amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (A-MCI) to progress towards Alzheimer's disease (AD), we investigated the efficacy of a non-pharmacological intervention, that is, cognitive training that could reduce cognitive difficulties and delay the cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The effects of an engaged lifestyle on cognitive vitality: a field experiment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Psychology and aging 2008-12-01

Experimental studies on cognitive training have suggested that the effects of experience are narrow in augmenting or maintaining cognitive abilities, while correlational studies report a wide range of benefits of an engaged lifestyle, including increased longevity, resistance to dementia, and enhanced cognitive flexibility. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Dietary patterns characterized by the aMED, HEI-2010, AHEI-2010, or DASH dietary score were not associated with cognitive decline in older women. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,425 Evidence: moderate

The ultimate goal of cognitive enhancement as an intervention for age-related cognitive decline is transfer to everyday cognitive functioning. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dietary Patterns and Cognitive Decline Among Chinese Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 2015-09-01

Our findings suggest that an adapted Mediterranean diet or a wheat-based, diverse diet with similar components may reduce the rate of cognitive decline in later life in the Chinese population. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,650 Evidence: moderate

MCI classification guidelines should allow for functional changes in MCI, and clinicians should monitor for such changes. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,358 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 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