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.

The frontotemporal dementia-motor neuron disease continuum

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2016-03-14

Early reports of cognitive and behavioural deficits in motor neuron disease might have been overlooked initially, but the concept of a frontotemporal dementia-motor neuron disease continuum has emerged during the past decade. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In a cross-section of older adults, vitamin D deficiency was associated with low mood and with impairment on two of four measures of cognitive performance. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 80 Evidence: moderate

Association of Digital Clock Drawing With PET Amyloid and Tau Pathology in Normal Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2021-02-15

DCTclock discriminates between diagnostic groups and improves upon traditional cognitive tests for detecting biomarkers of amyloid and tau pathology in CN older adults. 3 key findings →

Participants: 300 Evidence: low

Comparing 18F-AV-1451 with CSF t-tau and p-tau for diagnosis of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2018-01-10

CSF tau and 18 F-AV-1451 have equal performance in early clinical stages of AD, but 18 F-AV-1451 is superior in the dementia stage, and exhibits close to perfect diagnostic performance for mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

Among dementia-like diseases, Alzheimer disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD) are two of the most frequent. 2 key findings →

Participants: 60 Evidence: low

It could be of great improvement for the use of the MMSE in dementia screening in Chinese elderly population. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 9,629 Evidence: low

Ten-year incidence of dementia in a rural elderly US community population: the MoVIES Project

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2000-03-01

Incidence rates of all dementias and of AD increased with age; men and those with lesser education had higher rates of possible/incipient dementia (CDR = 0.5) in this community. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,298 Evidence: moderate

Using the OSHPE criteria, we found more participants with MCI than with frailty. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,104 Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) presents a significant challenge in neurodegenerative research and clinical practice due to its complex etiology and progressive nature. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

What is semantic dementia?: a cohort study of diagnostic features and clinical boundaries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-04-01

Semantic dementia is distinguishable from other presentations of frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer disease, not only by fluent speech and impaired comprehension without loss of episodic memory, syntax, and phonology but also by empty, garrulous speech with thematic perseverations, semantic paraphasias, and poor category fluency. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 48 Evidence: moderate

135 subjects enrolled in a longitudinal clinicopathologic study were administered the MoCA by a single physician and the MMSE by a trained research assistant. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 135 Evidence: moderate

The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the most widely used instrument for the screening of cognitive impairment worldwide, but its ability to produce valid estimates of dementia in populations of low socioeconomic status and minimal literacy skills has not been adequately established. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,933 Evidence: low

Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) needs to be distinguished from Alzheimer's disease (AD) because of important differences in patient management and outcome. 4 key findings →

Participants: 61 Evidence: low

Four subtypes emerged: (1) dysnomic (n = 153), (2) dysexecutive (n = 102), (3) amnestic (n = 288), and (4) cluster-derived normal (n = 282) who performed within normal limits on cognitive testing. 4 key findings →

Participants: 153 Evidence: moderate

Approximately half (54.5%, 35/55) of participants showed a decline in RBMT scores during the 2-year follow-up and were defined as the memory decline group. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 55 Evidence: moderate

The rural setting presented unique challenges including: low literacy rates (60.1% of participants had no schooling), diverse language use (primarily Giriama and Swahili), limited infrastructure (e.g., 44.8% of households had electricity), restrictive cultural norms that influenced data collection (e.g., in-home interviews were often conducted outdoors with destructions). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 202 Evidence: moderate

SB-C significantly differentiated cognitively unimpaired and impaired groups (P < 0.001), correlated with standard cognitive measures, and showed moderate-to-high area under the curve (0.56-0.82) for classifying biomarker positivity, with strongest results in BioFINDER-Primary Care. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 736 Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau217 and p-tau231 were most effective in diagnosing aMCI/AD (AUC = 0.95 and 0.93, respectively), while p-tau217, p-tau231 and p-tau181 presented the best differential diagnosis for AD from PSP, FTD and DLB respectively (AUC = 0.84, 0.81 and 0.83). α-synuclein was presented as the best biomarker for PSP variant and behavior variant FTD subtypes (AUC = 0.81 and 0.74, respectively). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 668 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