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.

Future research is warranted to examine the mechanistic basis of treatment differences, and to further assess the efficacy and safety of intranasal insulin. 4 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: high

Sleep, Cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Sleep 2017-01-01

Study objectives Mounting evidence implicates disturbed sleep or lack of sleep as one of the risk factors for Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the extent of the risk is uncertain. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 69,216 Evidence: high

The FINGER intervention was beneficial regardless of participants' characteristics and can thus be implemented in a large elderly population at increased risk for dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high

We also determined the extent to which sex, educational attainment, and apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (APOE*4) carrier status were associated with decline. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 42,170 Evidence: moderate

In a large dementia prevention trial with 6-year follow-up, dropout was associated with older age, poorer cognitive function, symptoms of depression, and disability at baseline. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,994 Evidence: high

Question Does physical exercise training improve physical function and quality of life in people with cognitive impairment and dementia? 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 3,988 Evidence: high

Our study is not subject to the biases of meta-analyses of published data, and it represents an important milestone in an ongoing collaborative effort to examine the neurobiological underpinnings of PTSD and the brain's response to trauma. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,868 Evidence: high

Daily oral DHA supplementation (2 g/day) for 24 months may improve cognitive function and change blood biomarker-related Aβ-mediated autophagy in people with MCI. 2 key findings →

Participants: 120 Evidence: high

The 4-week USMART modestly improved information retrieval in older people with MCI, and was well accepted with minimal technical support. 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

The meta-analyses suggest the credible efficacy and safety of memantine in treating AD when used alone or in combination with ChEIs. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 7,567 Evidence: high

In APOE4/4 homozygotes receiving 150mg BID tramiprosate, efficacy in the traditional Mild AD patients (MMSE 20-26) was higher than the overall group (MMSE 16-26) and efficacy in the Mild patients (MMSE 22-26) was highest. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 147 Evidence: high

Association of Plasma Neurofilament Light With Neurodegeneration in Patients With Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-05-01

Among 193 cognitively healthy controls, 197 patients with mild cognitive impairment, and 180 patients with AD with dementia, plasma NFL correlated with CSF NFL (Spearman ρ = 0.59, P Conclusions and relevance Plasma NFL is associated with AD diagnosis and with cognitive, biochemical, and imaging hallmarks of the disease. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 197 Evidence: moderate

Association Between Midlife Vascular Risk Factors and Estimated Brain Amyloid Deposition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. JAMA 2017-04-01

An increasing number of midlife vascular risk factors was significantly associated with elevated amyloid SUVR; this association was not significant for late-life risk factors. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

Apolipoprotein E Genotype and Sex Risk Factors for Alzheimer Disease: A Meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-10-01

Contrary to long-standing views, men and women with the APOE ε3/ε4 genotype have nearly the same odds of developing AD from age 55 to 85 years, but women have an increased risk at younger ages. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

MCI prevalence was 6.7% for ages 60-64, 8.4% for 65-69, 10.1% for 70-74, 14.8% for 75-79, and 25.2% for 80-84. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Midlife vascular risk factors are associated with increased risk of dementia in black and white ARIC Study participants. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 744 Evidence: moderate

In both phases, men were encouraged to visit their physician if the screen results indicated possible cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 7,540 Evidence: high

Advancing age increases the risk for diseases and health concerns like cognitive decline, constituting a major public health challenge. 1 key finding →

Participants: 631 Evidence: high

The large number of well-characterized candidate facilities enabled several unique design features including stratification on historical hospitalization rates, randomization prior to recruitment, and 2:1 control to intervention facilities ratio. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 119 Evidence: high

↑ 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