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.

Cholinesterase inhibitors with additional nicotinic activity, such as galantamine, may be useful in PD patients with dementia (PDD) since stimulation of nicotinic receptors may prevent the down-regulation that is likely to accompany cholinesterase inhibition and facilitate dopamine release in the striatum. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: low

Oxidative stress and energy depletion are characteristic biochemical hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD), thus antioxidants with positive effects on glucose metabolism such as thioctic (alpha-lipoic) acid should exert positive effects in these patients. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

499 adults 48 to 91 years-old enrolled in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and were administered the MoCA during baseline. 4 key findings →

Participants: 499 Evidence: low

Proper screening of depression among older adults depends on accurate cut-off scores. 4 key findings →

Participants: 74 Evidence: low

At the end of 2022, 3.7% (92,293/2,483,798) of people aged ≥62 years in Sweden had a dementia diagnosis from specialist care or drug prescriptions and varied from 0.6% in ages 62-69 to 14.8% in ages ≥90. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Who misses MCI diagnosis before dementia?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Among 32,430 individuals (mean age at first hospital encounter 76.6±10.9 years; 59.1% female; 4.2% African American; 5.0% Hispanic), only 16.0% received an MCI diagnosis before their dementia diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Participants: 32,430 Evidence: low

Older patients with kidney failure residing in high-disadvantage neighborhoods, particularly Black patients and those in suburban, rural, or small-town areas, had a higher risk of ADRD compared with those in low-disadvantage neighborhoods. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The rising prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, combined with persistent underdiagnosis, is driving an increased need for scalable cognitive assessment tools. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Study-specific algorithms yielded comparable dementia prevalence estimates: 10.8 % in NHATS and 11.1 % in HRS-HCAP. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,696 Evidence: low

We estimated the prevalence of dementia at 6.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.4-8.0] and MCI at 10% (95% CI: 8.7-11.7). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,629 Evidence: low

Reliability and validity analysis of the Chinese version of the Quick Dementia Rating System (QDRS)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. BMC Geriatrics 2025-07-02

/df = 2.81, P < 0.001). There were strong correlations between the C-QDRS and standardized neuropsychological tests, indicating that the C-QDRS exhibited concurrent validity (all P < 0.001). 4 key findings →

Participants: 366 Evidence: low

The NIA hopes to see continued collection and harmonization of the International HRS and HCAP data, as well as continued use of the data to advance our knowledge of how behavioral and social factors influence aging and life course outcomes, including those related to AD/ADRD. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The ViT approach predicted dementia with 76.5% balanced accuracy, outperforming human-scored features (74.3%) and existing deep learning models (MiniVGG = 73.3%, MobileNetV2 = 72.3%, relevance factor variational autoencoder = 69.1%) on the TDRA dataset. 3 key findings →

Participants: 862 Evidence: low

BackgroundThe clinical significance of enlarged perivascular spaces (EPVS) in Alzheimer' s disease (AD) was ambiguous. 2 key findings →

Participants: 64 Evidence: low

Participants were distributed across various regions of Australia: seven interviews from inner regional Australia, five interviews from outer regional Australia, and twenty-one interviews from metropolitan areas. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the field of medical imaging, offering unprecedented capabilities in data analysis, image interpretation, and decision support. 2 key findings →

Participants: 41 Evidence: low

Differentiating sporadic frontotemporal dementia from late-onset primary psychiatric disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Brain Communications 2025-01-01

Higher scores in cognitive screening [odds ratio (OR): 1.23], facial emotion processing (OR: 1.69), episodic memory (OR: 1.09), animal fluency (OR: 1.17), working memory (OR: 1.18), letter fluency (OR: 1.17) and depressive symptoms (OR: 7.41) were significantly associated with PPD (all Ps ≤ 0.010). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Statistical analysis revealed a trend toward more impaired prefrontal FC with declining cognitive function. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In patients with cognitive impairment due to diverse causes, the HTS might occur regardless of MCI versus dementia status and across different etiologies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 121 Evidence: moderate

Data collection began in March 2024. So far 562 people completed a pre-screening online questionnaire, with 190 passing pre-screening of whom 54% met eligibility criteria. 5 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: high

The 4R-like pattern was more prevalent and more strongly expressed (84.3%, mean score, 2.0 ± 1.1) in patients with a consensus diagnosis of PSP/CBD (joint diagnostic group of clinically likely 4R tauopathies) than in all other groups (11.6%, 0.26 ± 0.75, P < 0.0001). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Retinal ganglion cell vulnerability to pathogenic tau in Alzheimer’s disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Acta Neuropathologica Communications 2025-02-15

Using the RGC marker ribonucleic acid binding protein with multiple splicing (RBPMS) and Nissl staining, we found a 46–56% reduction in RBPMS + RGCs and Nissl + neurons in the ganglion cell layer (GCL) of MCI and AD retinas ( P < 0.05–0.001). 5 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