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 MMSE–CDR‐SB residual may help flag less AD‐typical presentations for further etiologic evaluation, but cannot be interpreted as a pathology‐specific marker due to substantial overlap across diagnostic groups. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,981 Evidence: moderate

As disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer's disease become available, ensuring equitable access to timely and accurate diagnosis of cognitive impairment is critical. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

We aimed to explore primary care physicians' (PCP) attitudes, perceptions, and barriers toward Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis and incorporating blood biomarker (BBM) tests into the diagnostic workflow. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive dysfunctions such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Alzheimer's disease (AD), and other forms of dementia are recognized as common comorbidities of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of pain and symptom management 1997-03-01

We conducted two studies with medically hospitalized cancer and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients to assess the reliability and validity of a new measure of delirium severity, the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS). 4 key findings →

Participants: 33 Evidence: low

This automated method can serve as an alternative to manual tracing and may thus prove useful in assisting with the diagnosis of AD. 1 key finding →

Participants: 25 Evidence: low

Increasing life expectancy has led to an aging population, which has consequently increased the prevalence of dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Blood-Based Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis and Progression: An Overview

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Cells 2022-04-17

Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease characterized by amyloid-β (Aβ) plaque deposition and neurofibrillary tangle accumulation in the brain. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Blood-based neurochemical diagnosis of vascular dementia: a pilot study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of neurochemistry 2007-07-27

Blood-based tests for the differential diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are under intensive investigation and have shown promising results with regard to Abeta40 and Abeta42 peptide species in incipient AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Validity of a brief computerized cognitive screening test in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology 2012-06-01

CogState and standard neuropsychological task scores were significantly lower for dementia participants than that of the nondementia groups (P < .05), with a single CogState test distinguishing control from MCI participants, but minimal differentiation existing between dementias using the CogState. 2 key findings →

Participants: 37 Evidence: low

In established dementia, administration of the CogState tasks appears sensitive to cognitive impairment in dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

MemTrax can effectively detect both clinically diagnosed MCI and AD with better accuracy as compared to the MoCA based on AUCs in a Chinese cohort. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The Potential Role of Gut Microbiota in Alzheimer's Disease: From Diagnosis to Treatment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Nutrients 2022-02-05

Gut microbiota is emerging as a key regulator of many disease conditions and its dysregulation is implicated in the pathogenesis of several gastrointestinal and extraintestinal disorders. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

3D-SSP enables quantitative data extraction and reliable localization of metabolic abnormalities by means of stereotactic coordinates. 2 key findings →

Participants: 37 Evidence: low

Combining multi-modality data for brain disease diagnosis such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) commonly leads to improved performance than those using a single modality. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The pathogenesis of incipient Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been resistant to analysis because of the complexity of AD and the overlap of its early-stage markers with normal aging. 3 key findings →

Participants: 31 Evidence: low

The escalating prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) highlights the urgent need to develop reliable biomarkers for early diagnosis and intervention. 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Neurological damage is the pathological substrate of permanent disability in various neurodegenerative disorders. 1 key finding →

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