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.

Fifty-one AD patients enrolled, mean age 73.5. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

Baseline and 3-month visit data were available for 272 participants in arm 1 and 260 in arm 2 (median [IQR] age: 71 [65-77] and 71 [65-77] years; 150/272 male [55%] and 135/260 male [52%]; 122/272 female [45%] and 125/260 female [48%]; median [IQR] education: 12 [10-15] and 13 [10-16] years, respectively). 3 key findings →

Participants: 844 Evidence: high

Of 1018 study patients enrolled, 508 were randomly assigned to rivastigmine and 510 to placebo; 17.3% of patients on rivastigmine and 21.4% on placebo progressed to AD (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.64-1.12]; p=0.225). 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

For early detection of Alzheimer's disease, it is important to find biomarkers with predictive value for disease progression and clinical manifestations, such as cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 282 Evidence: moderate

Injury markers predict time to dementia in subjects with MCI and amyloid pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2012-09-26

In subjects with MCI and evidence of amyloid pathology, the injury markers CSF t-tau and p-tau and hippocampal atrophy can predict further cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 110 Evidence: moderate

The CSF AD profile was more common in patients with SCI (31 of 60 [52%]), naMCI (25 of 37 [68%]), and aMCI (56 of 71 [79%]) than in healthy controls (28 of 89 [31%]). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Estimates of AD disease duration become more accurate if age, sex, setting, APOE, and cerebrospinal fluid tau are taken into account. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,268 Evidence: low

Inflammatory proteins in plasma are associated with severity of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. PloS one 2013-06-10

Markers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are being widely sought with a number of studies suggesting blood measures of inflammatory proteins as putative biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 350 Evidence: moderate

[(11)C]PIB retention in the neocortical and subcortical brain regions was significantly higher in AD patients than in age-matched controls. 3 key findings →

Participants: 97 Evidence: low

Increased (11)C-DED binding throughout the brain of the MCI (11)C-PIB+ patients potentially suggests that astrocytosis is an early phenomenon in AD development. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

We explored resting-state metabolic connectivity in prodromal Alzheimer's disease (pAD) patients and in healthy controls (CTR), through a voxel-wise interregional correlation analysis of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) by means of statistical parametric mapping. 1 key finding →

Participants: 36 Evidence: low

Blood biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are promising for dementia prediction, but their association with progression across intermediate stages of cognitive decline in the general population remains unclear. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

This article presents recommendations, based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method, for the clinical application of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-β 1-42 , tau, and phosphorylated tau in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent findings suggest that Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a disconnection syndrome characterized by abnormalities in large-scale networks. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The clusters of significant depression and compensation were further used as volumetric regions of interest (ROIs) in a brain interregional correlation analysis in each prodromal AD subgroup to explore metabolic connectivity. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dynamic changes in PET amyloid and FDG imaging at different stages of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2010-08-04

In this study 5 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 9 Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients underwent respectively 3- and 5-year follow-up positron emission tomography (PET) studies with N-methyl [(11)C] 2-(4-methylaminophenyl)-6-hydroxy-benzothiazole ((11)C-PIB) and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) to understand the time courses in AD disease processes. 4 key findings →

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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events