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.

SEE MCKAY AND FURL DOI101093/AWW323 FOR A SCIENTIFIC COMMENTARY ON THIS ARTICLE: Focal brain injury can sometimes lead to bizarre symptoms, such as the delusion that a family member has been replaced by an imposter (Capgras syndrome). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Our findings suggest that older patients with reduced preoperative cognitive functions or who develop postoperative delirium are at risk of developing dementia within 5 years after cardiac surgery. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 114 Evidence: moderate

Patients with dementia are significantly more likely to be disenrolled from hospice following a long enrollment period compared with patients without dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 149,814 Evidence: moderate

We aimed to investigate whether hippocampal TDP-43 is associated with increased rates of hippocampal atrophy. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 205 Evidence: moderate

The association of physical activity with dementia and its subtypes has remained controversial in the literature and has continued to be a subject of debate among researchers. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Low physical activity is associated with a higher risk for dementia in older individuals, suggesting that a reduced risk of dementia and higher brain volumes may be additional health benefits of maintaining physical activity into old age. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,714 Evidence: moderate

Epidemiological evidence reveals that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased risk of neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), including dementia and Parkinson's disease (PD). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,651 Evidence: moderate

Twelve articles-published between the 2007 and 2017-have been included in this systematic review after a quantitative and qualitative selection. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Midlife systemic inflammatory markers are associated with late-life brain volume: The ARIC study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Neurology 2017-11-01

Our prospective findings provide evidence for what may be an early contributory role of systemic inflammation in neurodegeneration and cognitive aging. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,633 Evidence: moderate

Among 112 study participants with MCI, mean (SD) age was 76.6 (6.9) years, 55 were women (49.1%), and 27 progressed to dementia (24.1%), with an incidence rate of 121 per 1000 person-years. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 112 Evidence: moderate

This study aimed to determine the extent to which cognitive measures can predict progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's type dementia (AD), assess the predictive accuracy of different cognitive domain categories, and determine whether accuracy varies as a function of age and length of follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,365 Evidence: moderate

[Memantine as add-on medication to acetylcholinesterase inhibitor therapy for Alzheimer dementia]

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Der Nervenarzt 2017-01

Currently available data indicate superior therapeutic effects of combination treatment for Alzheimer dementia with memantine and acetylcholine esterase inhibitors in certain clinical contexts. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Fasting lipid fractions (triglycerides [TGs], high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], total cholesterol [TC]) were studied as continuous variables, and results are reported per SD increase of each lipid fraction. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,294 Evidence: moderate

This review has shown that wearable systems are used mostly for the monitoring and provision of feedback on posture and upper extremity movements in stroke rehabilitation. 4 key findings →

Participants: 21 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 27,380 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