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.

Florbetapir F18 has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for in vivo assessment of amyloid pathology in patients undergoing evaluation for Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 229 Evidence: low

Since the introduction of amyloid imaging nearly 10 years ago, this technique has gained widespread use and acceptance. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Antipsychotic therapy and short-term serious events in older adults with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Archives of internal medicine 2008-05-01

Serious events, as indicated by a hospital admission or death, are frequent following the short-term use of antipsychotic drugs in older adults with dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Organelle-specific autophagy is one of the major subtypes of autophagy, selectively targeting different organelles for quality control. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The β-site APP cleaving enzymes 1 and 2 (BACE1 and BACE2) were initially identified as transmembrane aspartyl proteases cleaving the amyloid precursor protein (APP). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The study sample included 21 193 170 patients with 32 199 587 beneficiary-year observations (mean [SD] age, 75.5 [7.3] years; 18 936 697 [58.8%] female; 983 513 [3.1%] Asian or Pacific Islander, 3 190 515 [9.9%] Black, 2 710 930 [8.4%] Hispanic, and 25 314 629 [78.6%] White). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 21 Evidence: low

Parkinson disease (PD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and multiple system atrophy are synucleinopathies, characterized by neuronal loss, gliosis and the abnormal deposition of α-synuclein in vulnerable areas of the nervous system. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Among 87,229 matched patients per cohort, GLP-1 RA use was associated with a significantly lower risk of overall dementia (adjusted HR (AHR) 0.90; 95% CI 0.85 to 0.95), Alzheimer's disease (AD) (AHR 0.88; 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94), and non-vascular dementias (non-VaDs) (AHR 0.75; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.81) compared with metformin. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: high

In total, 945 were included patients, and 28.1% (n = 266) had dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 266 Evidence: moderate

Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) is a leading cause of stroke and dementia with no specific treatment, of which molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood. 2 key findings →

Participants: 40,000 Evidence: low

Rapid health technology assessment of galantamine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: A review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Medicine 2025-06-09

This study evaluates the efficacy, safety, and economics of galantamine in the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) patients, and to provide evidence-based reference for optimizing drug selection, dosing strategies, and reimbursement policies in clinical practice. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Our results suggest that decreased hippocampal tail and hippocampal head volumes could be trait changes, whereas hippocampal body changes may be dependent on treatment. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 39 Evidence: low

Plasma p-tau217 and p-tau217/Aβ1-42 are effective diagnostic tools. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

10 of the 3,071 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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