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 5,251–5,275 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 211 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.

(n = 16,683) had an average age of 69.07 ± 7.34, 72.04% were female, and had an average of 16.66 ± 2.26 years of education. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 16,683 Evidence: moderate

In 2018, Carlos et al. [2] reviewed 21 studies from the SUN project that focused on the association between the MDP and several incident chronic diseases, concluding that high Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, weight gain, metabolic syndrome, depression, cognitive decline, and nephrolithiasis, and with a lower heart rate and mitigation of the effects of obesity on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes, and our results suggested that the Mediterranean diet may improve fertility. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 79 Evidence: moderate

Among all participants, 247 (11.7%) had IADL limitations at baseline, and 151 (7.1%) developed dementia during follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,118 Evidence: moderate

CogDrisk-ML outperformed CAIDE in the UK Biobank and Whitehall II cohorts; however, it provided similar C statistics in the ARIC dataset. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Data collection commenced in November 2023 and finished in July 2024, with the enrollment of 49 older adults with MCI (n=40, 81.6%, assigned to the experimental group [EG] and n=9, 18.4%, to the control group [CG]) conducted from October 2023 to April 2024. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high

The CITA GO-ON Study, as a part of the World-Wide FINGERS network, is designed to validate the efficacy of a multidomain lifestyle intervention for dementia prevention and contribute valuable data to inform public health strategies fostering healthy, active aging. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,051 Evidence: high

The telmisartan group had the lowest risk of all dementias (telmisartan vs NT-ARB: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60 to 1.01; telmisartan vs angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.94). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 39,665 Evidence: moderate

Meta-analyses of epidemiological studies have suggested that Alzheimer's disease (AD) may be linked with exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields (MF). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 155,562 Evidence: high

The COVID-19 pandemic forced adult day services (ADS) to close and abruptly end in-person services to clients. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 19 Evidence: high

The program made it feasible to finance a costly treatment for patients that may benefit from it, while maintaining qualitative medical outcomes and sparing treating ophthalmologist from ethical gatekeeping dilemmas 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 5,642 Evidence: moderate

Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Principles and Practice of Geriatric Psychiatry 2002-04-15

CERAD was funded by the National Institute on Aging with a mandate to standardize assessment in Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,000 Evidence: moderate

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) constitutes one of the strongest environmental risk factors for several progressive neurodegenerative disorders of cognitive impairment and dementia that are characterized by the pathological accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau (p-Tau). 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a neurodegenerative tauopathy associated with repeated subconcussive and concussive head injury. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Our results provide evidence of the potential of Souvenaid™ therapy for the treatment of behavioral disturbances and social cognition skills in FTD. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Neuro-inflammation was not reduced between the neflamapimod and placebo groups, and no change was observed in [18F]-DPA-714 PET. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 17 Evidence: high

Overall, the available evidence suggests that natural compounds confer multitarget neuroprotective effects that directly engage with key pathological mechanisms underlying AD. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 41 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2010-01-27

This review of Alzheimer's disease assembles a variety of findings relevant to the mechanism of the disease and ties them together using the current understanding of the basis of the loss of cognition: the accumulation of misfolded proteins, which cause oxidative and inflammatory damage to the brain and, ultimately, synaptic dysfunction.

↑ 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