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.

Our findings demonstrate the capability of a fingerstick collection to accurately quantify p ‐tau217 levels longitudinally and genotype ApoE. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 58 Evidence: moderate

Stroke interacts with APOE ε4 to influence dementia, with the association being more pronounced in APOE ε4 non‐carriers. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 336 Evidence: moderate

Latin America’s diverse genetic landscape provides a unique opportunity to study Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,162 Evidence: low

We identified 8 brain structural features from 192 MRI features that were associated with the risk of MCI progressing to AD, including: left hippocampus, left inferior lateral ventricle, left amygdala, right middle temporal gyrus, left fusiform gyrus, right amygdala, left cortical total volume, and brain parenchyma total volume. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 947 Evidence: moderate

Subgroups with slower versus faster neurodegeneration, despite similar pathological accumulation, were compared to assess associations with genetic/lifestyles. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 529 Evidence: moderate

Genome-wide association studies have led to numerous genetic loci associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Participants: 2,247 Evidence: low

Along with rapid global population aging, the age-related cognitive disorders such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia have posed a serious threat to public health, health care system, and sustainable economic and societal development of all countries. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

This mass spectrometry-based plasma biomarker test: has strong diagnostic performance; can accurately distinguish brain amyloid positive from amyloid negative individuals; may aid in the diagnostic evaluation process for Alzheimer's disease; and may enhance the efficiency of enrolling participants into Alzheimer's disease drug trials. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

High plasma HDL cholesterol was observationally associated with increased risk of any dementia and Alzheimer's disease, suggesting that HDL cholesterol can be used as an easily accessible plasma biomarker for individual risk assessment. 5 key findings →

Participants: 111 Evidence: low

There is an urgent need to develop molecular biomarkers of brain age in order to advance our understanding of age related neurodegeneration. 3 key findings →

Participants: 700 Evidence: low

This transcriptomic network analysis of 19 brain regions provides a comprehensive assessment of the critical molecular pathways associated with AD pathology and offers new insights into molecular mechanisms underlying selective regional vulnerability to AD at different stages of the progression of cognitive compromise and development of the canonical neuropathological lesions of AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 125 Evidence: low

Mutations in the CHCHD10 gene have been recently identified in a large family with a complex phenotype variably associating frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), cerebellar ataxia, myopathy, and hearing impairment. 1 key finding →

Participants: 115 Evidence: low

Plasma p-tau217 was 57% higher in subjects with at least one APOE ε4 allele, increased with age, was higher in males, and negatively correlated with brain volume measures by magnetic resonance imaging. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Nine PSEN2 rare variants were found, including two reported (M239T, R62C) and seven novel variants (N141S, I368F, L396I, G117X, I146T, S147N, H220Y). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

10 of the 3,521 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