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.

Disease staging of Alzheimer's disease using a CSF-based biomarker model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Nature aging 2024-03-21

Biological staging of individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) may improve diagnostic and prognostic workup of dementia in clinical practice and the design of clinical trials. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 426 Evidence: moderate

The use of an amyloid clock enabled visualization and analysis of biomarker changes as a function of estimated years from symptom onset in sporadic AD. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 118 Evidence: moderate

Among cognitively normal participants with positive biomarkers, 34.4% developed cognitive impairment (Clinical Dementia Rating > 0) as compared to 8.4% of those with negative biomarkers. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 720 Evidence: moderate

Imaging and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in early preclinical alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2016-07-25

CSF Aβ42 levels are tightly coupled with cortical amyloid load in the earliest stages of preclinical AD, and begin to decrease dramatically prior to the point when an abnormal threshold of cortical accumulation is detected with amyloid imaging. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 164 Evidence: moderate

The amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) framework uses cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of total tau (tTau) as a marker of neurodegeneration and CSF levels of phosphorylated tau 181 (pTau181) as a marker of tau tangles. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 465 Evidence: moderate

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-β peptide (Aβ)42/Aβ40 and the concentration of tau phosphorylated at site 181 (p-tau181) are well-established biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 263 Evidence: low

This study suggests that the baseline value of amyloid PET and CSF Aβ 42 measures may be useful for screening participants for AD trials; however, brain hippocampus atrophy and hypometabolism are only useful as repeated longitudinal assessments for tracking cognition and disease progression. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 262 Evidence: moderate

The two primary molecular pathologies in Alzheimer's disease are amyloid-β plaques and tau-immunoreactive neurofibrillary tangles. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Heterogeneity in progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD) poses challenges for both clinical prognosis and clinical trial implementation. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

CSF biomarkers and amyloid positron emission tomography reflect different aspects of Alzheimer's disease brain pathology, and therefore, less-than-perfect correspondence is expected. 1 key finding →

Participants: 200 Evidence: low

Interest in understanding the roles of white matter (WM) inflammation and damage in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer disease (AD) has been growing significantly in recent years. 5 key findings →

Participants: 200 Evidence: low

Decades of research has established a shift from an "eveningness" preference to a "morningness" preference with increasing age. 4 key findings →

Participants: 169 Evidence: low

These findings suggest that NfL can be used to monitor cognitive decline in aging and Alzheimer's disease and that an attentional control composite may be a better outcome for tracking general neurodegenerative effects on cognition. 3 key findings →

Participants: 255 Evidence: moderate

Recent functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have demonstrated that moment-to-moment variability in the blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal is related to age differences, cognition, and symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 321 Evidence: low

However, it remains unknown whether white matter (WM) decline due to AD is associated with specific Tau phosphorylation site(s). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD)-modifying therapies are approved for treatment of early-symptomatic AD. 4 key findings →

Participants: 200 Evidence: low

Our findings support a role for plasma GFAP as a clinical biomarker of Aβ-related astrocyte reactivity that is associated with cognitive decline and neurodegeneration. 3 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 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