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.

Supported by very low-to-moderate certainty of evidence, physical activity/exercise has a positive effect on several cognitive and noncognitive outcomes in people with MCI and dementia, but RCTs, with low risk of bias/confounding, are still needed to confirm these relationships. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 28,205 Evidence: high

Hippocampal plasticity underpins long-term cognitive gains from resistance exercise in MCI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. NeuroImage. Clinical 2020-01-14

Furthermore, hippocampal subfields susceptible to atrophy in AD were protected by PRT revealing an elimination of long-term atrophy in the left subiculum, and attenuation of atrophy in left CA1 and dentate gyrus when compared to SHAM+SHAM (p = 0.023, p = 0.020 and p = 0.027). 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Outcomes from this trial support the conduct of a larger and longer trial with this participant group. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 57 Evidence: high

In this pilot study, RFM and the multi-domain approach CPR were feasible and had preliminary beneficial effects in older adults with MCI in primary care setting in Hong Kong. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

These findings highlight the potential benefits of palliative care in some non-cancer illnesses. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,936 Evidence: moderate

Despite undetectable TPI-287 levels in CSF, CSF biomarkers demonstrated decreased chitinase-3-like protein-1 (YKL-40) levels in the 4RT treatment arm (mean [SD], -8.4 [26.0] ng/mL) compared with placebo (mean [SD], 10.4 [42.3] ng/mL; median difference, -14.6 [95% CI, -30.0 to 0.2] ng/mL; P = .048, Mann-Whitney test). 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 39 Evidence: high

Of 157 participants initially assessed, 137 were enrolled in the Age-Well clinical trial, and 127 were analyzed in this study. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 157 Evidence: high

During 1 110 831 person-years at risk, we recorded 245 573 hospitalisations in the Finnish cohorts; the corresponding numbers in the UK study were 60 946 hospitalisations in 186 572 person-years. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,838 Evidence: moderate

Compared with UC, CCT increased scores on the MDRS's total, attention, and memory and those on the Mini-Mental State Examination and Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status over the 6-month intervention; TC increased scores on the MDRS's total and conceptualization and those on the Mini-Mental State Examination over the 6-month intervention, while it also increased scores on the MDRS's total and initiation/preservation and those on the Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status and reduced the time to complete the Trail Making Test B over the 12-month study. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Baseline subjective cognitive decline and low cognitive reserve significantly increased the risk of dementia, after 2 years of follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,099 Evidence: moderate

Although preliminary, our findings have implications for clinical services, and prospective cohort studies are warranted. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 62 Evidence: moderate

The number of years of formal education completed by individuals is positively correlated with their cognitive function throughout adulthood and predicts lower risk of dementia late in life. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Prognostic factors for severity and mortality in patients infected with COVID-19: A systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. PloS one 2020-11-17

Identified prognostic factors can help clinicians and policy makers in tailoring management strategies for patients with COVID-19 infectious disease while researchers can utilise our findings to develop multivariable prognostic models that could eventually facilitate decision-making and improve patient important outcomes. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 207 Evidence: high

A Path Toward Precision Medicine for Neuroinflammatory Mechanisms in Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Frontiers in immunology 2020-03-31

Neuroinflammation commences decades before Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical onset and represents one of the earliest pathomechanistic alterations throughout the AD continuum. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Whilst cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and positron emission tomography (PET) biomarkers for amyloid-β (Aβ) and tau pathologies are accurate for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), their broad implementation in clinical and trial settings are restricted by high cost and limited accessibility. 3 key findings →

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

Our findings suggest that older adults at higher dementia risk due to diabetes can show improvements in both cognition and disease self-management following home-based multidomain computerized cognitive training. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

The prospective cohort data from the JPSC-AD will provide valuable insights regarding the risk factors and etiology of dementia as well as for the development of predictive models and diagnostic markers for the future onset of dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 11,410 Evidence: moderate

The largest cohort, the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer Disease Study (n = 3154), was the PET screening cohort used for a secondary prevention trial designed to slow cognitive decline associated with brain amyloidosis. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,154 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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