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 literature has several methodological limitations including lack of sufficient algorithm development descriptions and standard definitions. 1 key finding →

Participants: 255 Evidence: moderate

FastSurfer - A fast and accurate deep learning based neuroimaging pipeline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. NeuroImage 2020-06-08

Traditional neuroimage analysis pipelines involve computationally intensive, time-consuming optimization steps, and thus, do not scale well to large cohort studies with thousands or tens of thousands of individuals. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Increased CSF APPs-α levels in patients with Alzheimer disease treated with acitretin

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2014-10-24

We investigated induction of α-secretase A disintegrin and metalloprotease 10 (ADAM10) by the synthetic retinoid acitretin (Neotigason; Actavis, München-Riem, Germany) in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD) via measurement of CSF content of α-secretase-derived amyloid precursor protein (APPs-α). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our study demonstrates that MRI, a widespread imaging technology, can individually identify bvFTD with high accuracy in multi-center imaging data, paving the road to personalized diagnostic approaches in the future. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Our findings suggest that dCDT is a suitable screening tool to identify early cognitive dysfunction. 1 key finding →

Participants: 381 Evidence: low

Our results demonstrate that unsupervised digital memory assessments might be used for diagnosis and prognosis in Alzheimer's disease, potentially in combination with plasma biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

To develop a simplified smell test for identifying patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), we reevaluated the Sniffin'-Sticks-Identification-Test (SST-ID) and University-of-Pennsylvania-Smell-Identification-Test (UPSIT), using three case-control studies. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 301 Evidence: moderate

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) based assessment of white matter fiber tract integrity can support the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 137 Evidence: low

The conventional Clock Drawing Test (cCDT) is a rapid and inexpensive screening tool for detection of moderate and severe dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Isolated rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (iRBD) is a major prodromal marker of α-synucleinopathies, often preceding the clinical onset of Parkinson's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, or multiple system atrophy. 3 key findings →

Participants: 31 Evidence: moderate

Our findings support speech-based cognitive assessments as a promising avenue towards remote MCI screening, with implications for scalable screening in clinical trials and healthcare. 3 key findings →

Participants: 110 Evidence: low

Elevated microglial activation in the right amygdala-entorhinal-hippocampal complex of App NL-G-F mice is associated with better spatial learning. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

HEK293, Neuro2a and SH-SY5Y expressing increased levels of α-synuclein were treated with sonicated α-synuclein pre-formed fibrils, to model seeded aggregation. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Our results suggest that DTI data provide better prediction accuracy than GM volume in predementia AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide The aggregation of α-synuclein is crucial to the development of Lewy body diseases, including Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Lewy body dementias (LBD), comprising dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and Parkinson’s disease dementia (PDD), are defined by misfolded α-synuclein aggregation. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

AbstractO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSGlucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are increasingly used for type 2 diabetes. 5 key findings →

Participants: 6,328 Evidence: low

↑ 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