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.

The present data support the notion that lithium has disease-modifying properties with potential clinical implications in the prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: high

Antibodies against beta-amyloid slow cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Neuron 2003-05-01

To test whether antibodies against beta-amyloid are effective in slowing progression of Alzheimer's disease, we assessed cognitive functions in 30 patients who received a prime and a booster immunization of aggregated Abeta(42) over a 1 year period in a placebo-controlled, randomized trial. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high

Longitudinal observational studies show an association between higher levels of physical activity and a reduced risk of cognitive decline and dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

This is the first randomized controlled trial with supervised moderate-to-high intensity exercise in patients with mild AD. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 200 Evidence: high

Association of Cardiovascular Health Level in Older Age With Cognitive Decline and Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA 2018-08-01

In this cohort of older adults, increased numbers of optimal cardiovascular health metrics and a higher cardiovascular health score were associated with a lower risk of dementia and lower rates of cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,626 Evidence: moderate

When completed in 2022, Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders study should provide definitive evidence of the effect of hearing treatment versus education control on cognitive decline in community-dwelling older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing impairment. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

We carried out systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether peripheral levels of pro-inflammatory markers including Interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), Interleukin-6 (IL-6), Tumor Necrosis Factor-α (TNF- α) and C-Reactive Protein (CRP) are significantly higher in elderly with depression and Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Pesticide exposure and risk of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Scientific reports 2016-09-01

Evidence suggests that lifelong cumulative exposure to pesticides may generate lasting toxic effects on the central nervous system and contribute to the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Stigma negatively affects individuals with cognitive impairment and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 51 Evidence: high

Our findings demonstrate that 10-year CP exposure was associated with a 1.707-fold increase in the risk of developing AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,291 Evidence: moderate

Deep learning, a state-of-the-art machine learning approach, has shown outstanding performance over traditional machine learning in identifying intricate structures in complex high-dimensional data, especially in the domain of computer vision. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has gained much interest in recent years for its ability to explain the complex decision-making process of machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Epidemiological aspects of Parkinson's disease (PD), co-occurring diseases and medical healthcare utilization of PD patients are still largely elusive. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 100,000 Evidence: moderate

Curcumin exhibits neuroprotective activity in preclinical models of the four NDs analysed, acting on six interconnected mechanisms and the gut-brain axis. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Age-related hearing loss is linked to loneliness and poorer cognitive health, but it remains unclear whether loneliness helps explain associations between hearing difficulties and cognitive performance or dementia, and whether these patterns reflect causal pathways or shared underlying liability. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 10,375 Evidence: moderate

This landmark NIH-funded trial (REACH II) tested a structured, multi-part support program for 642 Hispanic, White, and Black family caregivers of people with Alzheimer's or related dementias across 5 U.S. cities. 4 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 642 Evidence: high

In a study of 2.2 million adults in Ontario, Canada, people who lived very close to a major road (within 50 meters) had a small but statistically significant higher risk of developing dementia than those living farther away (over 300 meters), even after accounting for other health and demographic factors. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 2,200,000 Evidence: high

Lecanemab Treatment in a Specialty Memory Clinic

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-07-01

The most significant adverse events associated with these therapies are infusion-related reactions and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) with edema/effusion (ARIA-E) and/or hemorrhage/hemosiderin deposition (ARIA-H). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 234 Evidence: moderate

More frequent social contact at age 60 years was associated with lower dementia risk (hazard ratio [HR] for each SD higher social contact frequency = 0.88 [95% CI 0.79, 0.98], p = 0.02); effect size of the association of social contact at 50 or 70 years with dementia was similar (0.92 [95% CI 0.83, 1.02], p = 0.13 and 0.91 [95% CI 0.78, 1.06], p = 0.23, respectively) but not statistically significant. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 10,228 Evidence: moderate

Across the cohorts, each 10-year increase in BAI was associated with a 39% higher risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.21-1.59]; P Conclusions and relevance In this IPD meta-analysis, a higher sleep EEG-based BAI was associated with a higher risk of incident dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 7,105 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 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