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.

Frequent Amyloid Deposition Without Significant Cognitive Impairment Among the Elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Archives of Neurology 2008-11-10

Amyloid deposition can be identified among cognitively normal elderly persons during life, and the prevalence of asymptomatic amyloid deposition may be similar to that of symptomatic amyloid deposition.

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

Higher baseline WMH volume and higher GFAP were associated with a greater likelihood of diagnostic progression. 5 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: low

BackgroundCognitive impairment significantly impacts the quality of life in patients with neurodegenerative disorders, including Huntington's disease (HD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and Alzheimer's disease (AD).ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the utility of MemTrax, a contemporary digital continuous recognition task platform originally developed for AD, as an effective tool for revealing cognitive and clinical motor impairments in HD and PD populations as aligned with respective disease staging. 2 key findings →

Participants: 135 Evidence: low

In response to correspondence from Cognivue, Inc. regarding our publication (Jannati et al., 2025), we clarify that our analysis employed a rigorous paired-sample design using the same 930 participants from the Bio-Hermes-001 study for both the Digital Clock and Recall® (DCR) and Cognivue Clarity® assessments. 3 key findings →

Participants: 930 Evidence: low

The SVCI group showed lower CD in the temporal quadrant of the RPC network compared to the CN group (mean (SD), 42.34 (6.29) vs 48.45 (7.08); p = 0.001). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 69 Evidence: low

Plasma GFAP effectively distinguished AD dementia from multiple neurodegenerative diseases, gradually increased across the AD continuum, predicted the individual risk of AD progression, and strongly correlated with AD CSF/neuroimaging biomarkers. 2 key findings →

Participants: 818 Evidence: low

Impact of Amyloid and Tau PET on Changes in Diagnosis and Patient Management

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2022-09-29

The combination of amyloid and tau PETs was associated with changes in management and diagnosis of MCI and dementia, and the second-generation tau PET has a strong impact on the changes in diagnosis and management in memory clinics. 5 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: moderate

These pathological changes lead to widespread neuronal damage, significantly impacting daily functioning and quality of life. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive assessment appropriate for diagnosis of dementia and CIND in large population surveys could be improved with more targeted information from informants and additional cognitive tests targeting other areas of brain function. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Accurate diagnosis of vascular dementia is important for the recognition of underlying pathophysiology and the institution of appropriate therapy. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease is progressive and irreversible, but pharmacologic therapies for cognitive impairment and nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatments for the behavioral problems associated with dementia can enhance quality of life. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The DemTect is short (8-10 minutes), easy to administer, and its transformed total score (maximum 18) is independent of age and education. 3 key findings →

Participants: 121 Evidence: low

The adverse effects of obesity and hypertension in men are independent and cumulative with respect to cognitive deficit. 1 key finding →

Participants: 551 Evidence: low

The Cronbach's alpha of MoCA-J as an index of internal consistency was 0.74. 1 key finding →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

Vascular dementia (VaD) is recognised as a neurocognitive disorder, which is explained by numerous vascular causes in the general absence of other pathologies. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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