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.

Among 163 patients (mean age 69.3 ± 7.4 years, 52% female), plasma p-tau217 distinguished A+ from A- individuals (area under the curve [AUC] 0.90, 81% sensitivity, 91% specificity). 4 key findings →

Participants: 163 Evidence: low

Recent studies have demonstrated the high analytical and diagnostic performance of plasma p-tau217 using well-defined cohorts. 2 key findings →

Participants: 276 Evidence: low

We evaluated a digital cognitive assessment platform, Philips IntelliSpace Cognition, in a case-control study of patients diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cognitively normal (CN) older adults. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Metals, Nanoparticles, Particulate Matter, and Cognitive Decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Frontiers in neurology 2022-01-21

Exposure to metals is ubiquitous and emission sources include gasoline, diesel, smoke from wildfires, contaminated soil, water and food, medical implants, waste recycling facilities, subway exposures, and occupational environments. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The clinical heterogeneity of multiple system atrophy (MSA) may, along with the primary aggregation of alpha-synuclein (α-syn), partly be shaped by co-pathologies, such as amyloid-beta (Aβ), phosphorylated (p)-tau, and pTDP-43, though their relevance remains unclear. 3 key findings →

Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate

In pre-clinical Alzheimer’s disease, cerebral amyloid-β (Aβ) deposition precedes symptoms; Aβ-targeted therapies may have maximum benefits at this stage. 1 key finding →

Participants: 543 Evidence: moderate

Blood phosphorylated tau (p-tau) biomarkers, including p-tau217, show high associations with Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuropathologic change and clinical stage. 1 key finding →

Participants: 388 Evidence: low

Combining co-pathology markers may identify individuals with a high risk of cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Participants: 262 Evidence: low

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers are essential for the accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet their measurement levels vary widely across centers and regions, leaving no uniform cutoff values to date. 5 key findings →

Participants: 64 Evidence: moderate

Finding Treatment Effects in Alzheimer Trials in the Face of Disease Progression Heterogeneity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2021-06-01

Individuals with early AD show heterogeneity in disease progression, which increases when stratifying on risk factors associated with progression. 3 key findings →

Participants: 302 Evidence: low

Cerebrospinal fluid tau and CSF-Abeta42 have so far been studied in research settings, under conditions providing data on the optimal performance. 1 key finding →

Participants: 105 Evidence: low

Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are common in dementia and in predementia syndromes such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Olfactory impairment at baseline was strongly associated with 5-year incidence of cognitive impairment as measured using the MMSE. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The neuropathological diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Molecular neurodegeneration 2019-08-02

Alzheimer's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disease most often associated with memory deficits and cognitive decline, although less common clinical presentations are increasingly recognized. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Six-item screener to identify cognitive impairment among potential subjects for clinical research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Medical care 2002-09-01

The six-item screener is a brief and reliable instrument for identifying subjects with cognitive impairment and its diagnostic properties are comparable to the full MMSE. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

An international group of clinical and basic scientists participated in the Frontotemporal Dementia and Pick's Disease Criteria Conference at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md, on July 7, 2000, to reassess clinical and neuropathological criteria for the diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We report the prevalence rates for dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) obtained from a probability sample survey of 5,055 noninstitutionalized older persons in Shanghai, China. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Depression was the most common psychiatric diagnosis in all groups. 2 key findings →

Participants: 69 Evidence: low

To assess the value of exosomal miRNAs as biomarkers for Alzheimer disease (AD), the expression of microRNAs was measured in a plasma fraction enriched in exosomes by differential centrifugation, using Illumina deep sequencing. 4 key findings →

Participants: 35 Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

10 of the 1,775 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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