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 7,126–7,150 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 286 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.

There is emerging evidence that obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a risk factor for preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Withdrawal of Life-supporting Treatment in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA surgery 2020-08-01

Black patients (4806 [13.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.72; P Conclusions and relevance Withdrawal of LST is common in sTBI and socioeconomic factors are associated with the decision to withdraw LST. 5 key findings →

Participants: 37,931 Evidence: low

The results suggest that APOE epsilon4 and heavy drinking and heavy smoking lower the age of onset for AD in an additive fashion. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 397 Evidence: moderate

Cognability: An Ecological Theory of neighborhoods and cognitive aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Social science & medicine (1982) 2022-07-20

While a growing body of evidence points to potentially modifiable individual risk factors for dementia, the built and social environments in which people develop and navigate cognitive decline are largely overlooked. 2 key findings →

Participants: 21,151 Evidence: low

Mobile technologies in the early detection of cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. PloS one 2014-12-23

The identification of biological and pathophysiological processes implicated in different forms of dementia is itself dependent on reliable descriptions of cognitive performance and capacities. 2 key findings →

Participants: 60 Evidence: moderate

No large-scale characterizations of neurofilament light chain (NfL) have been conducted in diverse populations. 1 key finding →

Participants: 890 Evidence: low

Diabetes and cognitive systems in older black and white persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2010-01-01

We examined the association of type 2 diabetes mellitus to function in different cognitive systems in older black and white persons. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,437 Evidence: moderate

Prevalence of dementia in rural China: impact of age, gender and education

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Acta neurologica Scandinavica 2006-10-01

The prevalence of dementia in this population is similar to that reported from other areas in mainland China and Taiwan with aging being a significant risk factor. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 16,095 Evidence: moderate

Variation in use of APMs in U.S. nursing homes based upon facility characteristics exemplifies the need for a more systematic protocol guiding the use of these medications, along with heightened regulatory policies and enforcement. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Although air pollution is well known to be harmful to the lung and airways, it can also damage most other organ systems of the body. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mitochondrial DNA instability disorders are responsible for a large clinical spectrum, among which amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-like symptoms and frontotemporal dementia are extremely rare. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Exposure to particulate matter (PM) in the ambient air and its interactions with APOE alleles may contribute to the acceleration of brain aging and the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

During the 6534 person-years of follow-up (mean, 5.02 years per person), 440 subjects were diagnosed as having dementia, including 333 with Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,301 Evidence: moderate

There was no control group, but worsening of akinesia, speech, postural stability, freezing of gait, and cognitive function between the first and the fifth year is consistent with the natural history of Parkinson's disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The ongoing development of robotics on the one hand and, on the other hand, the foreseen relative growth in number of elderly individuals suffering from dementia, raises the question of which contribution robotics could have to rationalize and maintain, or even improve the quality of care. 1 key finding →

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