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 11,776–11,800 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 472 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.

We expect to demonstrate that personalized TMS intervention has a measurable positive impact in cognition, emotion, daily living activities and brain connectivity, thus representing a potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

We are conducting a single-blinded, National Institutes of Health stage-2, randomized clinical trial to establish the efficacy of AB versus a time-matched and dose-matched education control (Health Enhancement Program [HEP]) in improving self-reported and objective outcomes of physical, cognitive, and emotional functions in 260 participants. 3 key findings →

Participants: 37 Evidence: high

We will use results from this study to develop the first live video telehealth dyadic resiliency intervention focused on the prevention of chronic emotional distress in couples shortly after ADRD diagnoses. 2 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: high

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of two doses of anapsos in comparison with placebo on cognitive performance, brain bioelectrical activity pattern and cerebral hemodynamic parameters in patients with mild to moderate senile dementia of vascular type and Alzheimer type. 3 key findings →

Participants: 22 Evidence: high

Data available on the relationship between salivary function and specific drug therapy are sparse. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Our study shows that ICERS of PFA combined with MI and MI alone amounted to €21,443 and €21,543 respectively per improved Z score point compared to the placebo and are below the WTP of €50,000 while the ICER of PFA alone amounted to €111,720 per improved Z score point. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,525 Evidence: high

This article primarily describes the design of a monocentre, randomized, doubleblind trial to be conducted in France to evaluate the effect of the combination of tDCS and cognitive training on apathy compared to a group treated exclusively by cognitive training (sham tDCS). 3 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: high

Alzheimer disease as a vascular disorder: nosological evidence

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Stroke 2002-04-01

Since the value of scientific evidence generally revolves around probability and chance, it is concluded that the data presented here pose a powerful argument in support of the proposal that AD should be classified as a vascular disorder. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) has been linked to participation in contact sports such as boxing and American football. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

A link between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and metabolic disorders has been established, with patients with type 2 diabetes at increased risk of developing AD and vice versa. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Age-related hearing loss and cognitive decline - The potential mechanisms linking the two

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Auris, nasus, larynx 2018-09-01

The amount of attention to age-related hearing loss (ARHL) has been growing, not only from the perspective of being one of the most common health conditions affecting older adults, but also from the perspective of its relation to cognition. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Impact of sleep on the risk of cognitive decline and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Current opinion in psychiatry 2014-11-01

Trouble falling or staying asleep, poor sleep quality, and short or long sleep duration are gaining attention as potential risk factors for cognitive decline and dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study suggests that violence is a significant phenomenon and that all health workers, especially nurses, are at risk of suffering aggressive assaults. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Western countries are experiencing aging populations and increased longevity; thus, the incidence of dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) in these countries is projected to soar. 5 key findings →

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