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.

Recent studies have shown that deficient functioning of glutamate transporters (GTs) in Alzheimer disease (AD) might lead to neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Amyloid precursor protein (APP) metabolites (amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides) and Tau are the main components of senile plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, the two histopathological hallmarks of Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Discussions revealed that people were generally supportive of this type of research, provided they gave informed consent and that devices were discreet, comfortable and easy to use. 4 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

Of 15,390 narratives collected from 3139 patients with PsA for exploratory analysis, physical concepts were the most common (81.5%), followed by emotional (50.7%), cognitive (20.0%), role activity (8.1%), and social (5.6%) concepts. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,139 Evidence: low

Across both cohorts, individuals with lower SES generally exhibited higher BERs (worse performance) than high SES groups, confirming the presence of bias. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,041 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

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

MCI prevalence was comparable across groups (7.5%-8.0%), but progression to dementia varied (9.4% Black vs. 11.4% Other). 5 key findings →

Participants: 83,180 Evidence: low

Of 219 completing participants (mean age 73.5 years), the mean SUS score was 82.0 (95% CI: 80.3-83.8), with 84% exceeding the usability threshold (SUS score > 68). 5 key findings →

Participants: 241 Evidence: low

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic accelerated development of innovative methods for conducting research remotely via digital technologies. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,860 Evidence: low

Assistive technology (AT) involvement in therapeutic treatment has provided simple and efficient healthcare solutions to people. 5 key findings →

Participants: 38 Evidence: low

For the 61 residents, the average age of the residents was 87 years, with 61% being female and 69% having dementia as the primary diagnosis. 3 key findings →

Participants: 61 Evidence: low

Preliminary findings suggest that the NIH Toolbox has the advantage of showing the strongest overall clustering and alignment with standardized paper-and-pencil tasks. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Careful design and user-testing should be made a priority in the development of computerized assessment interfaces, as well as reevaluating the cognitive assessment process to minimize patient anxiety and discomfort. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Imaging Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Cells 2024-11-27

Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in the elderly population (aged 65 years and over), followed by vascular dementia, Lewy body dementia, and rare types of neurodegenerative diseases, including frontotemporal dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease where biomarkers for disease based on pathophysiology may be able to provide objective measures for disease diagnosis and staging. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 1,102 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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