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.

A 2-year multi-domain lifestyle intervention among older adults was effective in preventing cerebrovascular events and also total CVD events among those who had history of CVD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 631 Evidence: high

Effects of Mindfulness Training and Exercise on Cognitive Function in Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 84 out of 100. JAMA 2022-12-01

Among older adults with subjective cognitive concerns, mindfulness training, exercise, or both did not result in significant differences in improvement in episodic memory or executive function at 6 months. 5 key findings →

Participants: 150 Evidence: high

Of 3285 included participants, the mean (SD) age was 70.4 (7.45) years; 1706 participants (52%) were female, 2661 (81%) had mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease, and 1777 (54%) used symptomatic medications for Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,087 Evidence: high

Data extraction and synthesis This analysis involved random-effects meta-analyses on group-level study results of clinical data and systematic review of the neuroimaging literature. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 591 Evidence: high

Donanemab for Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 83 out of 100. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) 2022-12-22

Amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and aggregated tau are two core mechanisms that contribute to the clinical deterioration of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 396 Evidence: high

Hearing loss is one of the top contributors to years lived with disability and is a risk factor for dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 723,266 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease is a progressive, irreversible, and fatal disease for which accumulation of amyloid beta is thought to play a key role in pathogenesis. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,638 Evidence: high

In TRAILBLAZER-ALZ, 272 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.2 [5.5] years; 145 [53.3%] female) were randomized. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,955 Evidence: high

From May 13, 2015, to July 22, 2020, 185 participants with Down syndrome were assessed for eligibility and 160 (86%) were randomly assigned either memantine (n=81) or placebo (n=79). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 81 Evidence: high

There were 813 participants in CREAD (mean [SD] age, 70.7 [8.2] years; 483 female and 330 male) and 806 in CREAD2 (mean [SD] age, 70.9 [7.7] years; 456 female and 350 male). 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 3,664 Evidence: high

This systematic review suggests that CCT interventions could improve global cognitive function in patients with MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,059 Evidence: high

Vascular management takes place every 3-6 months or otherwise as specified by study physicians. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,200 Evidence: high

Lecanemab treatment resulted in significant reduction in amyloid plaques and a slowing of clinical decline. 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 856 Evidence: high

Our findings show that the first months of the outbreak did not significantly impact the cognition, quality of life, perceived health status, and depression of our study population when making comparisons with baseline assessments prior to the outbreak. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 75 Evidence: high

Blood pressure lowering and prevention of dementia: an individual patient data meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 80 out of 100. European Heart Journal 2022-12-21

The first single-stage individual patient data meta-analysis from randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials provides evidence to support benefits of antihypertensive treatment in late-mid and later life to lower the risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 28,008 Evidence: high

The global prevalence of MCI among community dwellers is over 15% and is affected by age, gender, education level and region of study sites. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 242,804 Evidence: high

The findings suggest that risk factors associated with ADRDs have changed over the past decade and differ based on sex and race and ethnicity. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 378 Evidence: high

Despite older racial and ethnic minorities (REMs) being more likely to develop dementia they are underrepresented in clinical trials focused on neurological disorders. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 100,748 Evidence: high

Vision impairment and cognitive decline among older adults: a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. BMJ open 2022-01-06

Our systematic review indicates that a majority of studies examining the vision-cognition relationship report that VI is associated with more cognitive decline, cognitive impairment or dementia among older adults. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 100 Evidence: high

Identifying ancestry-specific molecular profiles of late-onset Alzheimer's Disease (LOAD) in brain tissue is crucial to understand novel mechanisms and develop effective interventions in non-European, high-risk populations. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 731 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