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.

Prevalence of cerebral amyloid pathology in persons without dementia: a meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 84 out of 100. JAMA 2015-05-01

Among persons without dementia, the prevalence of cerebral amyloid pathology as determined by positron emission tomography or cerebrospinal fluid findings was associated with age, APOE genotype, and presence of cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,914 Evidence: high

With no effective treatments for cognitive decline or dementia, improving the evidence base for modifiable risk factors is a research priority. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 48,522 Evidence: high

Global Prevalence of Young-Onset Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2021-09-01

A total of 95 unique studies were included in this systematic review, of which 74 with 2 760 379 unique patients were also included in 5-year age band meta-analyses. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 95 Evidence: high

We also determined the extent to which sex, educational attainment, and apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (APOE*4) carrier status were associated with decline. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 42,170 Evidence: moderate

Transcranial pulse stimulation (TPS) is a recent development in non-invasive brain stimulations (NIBS) that has been proven to be effective in terms of significantly improving Alzheimer patients' cognition, memory, and execution functions. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high

We tested the trained model using five other studies, three of which used PET as a biomarker of significant amyloid β burden (testing the deep learning model between amyloid β positive vs amyloid β negative). 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 648 Evidence: moderate

Epidemiologic evidence suggests that cognitive and physical activities are associated with better cognition in late life. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

No significant difference between the three groups in ADAS-Cog was found at the primary endpoint at 15 months (CPR vs health advice, β= -0·04 [95% CI -0·34 to 0·26]; RFM vs health advice, β= -0·14 [-0·44 to 0·15]; CPR vs RFM, β=0·10 [-0·19 to 0·40]) nor at the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. 1 key finding →

Design: RCT Participants: 456 Evidence: null result

An international working group from the Centres of Excellence in Neurodegeneration completed a structured process to develop definitions and imaging standards for markers and consequences of cerebral small vessel disease (SVD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The emphasis on benefits, rather than losses and difficulties, provides a new dimension to the way interventions for caregivers can be conceptualized and delivered. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Benefit-finding reduces depressive symptoms as well as global burden in the long-term and increases psychological well-being in the medium-term. 1 key finding →

Participants: 129 Evidence: high

The study consists of 25,186 patients (mean age = 63.0, interquartile range [IQR] of age = 15.1 years, male = 50%). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 25,186 Evidence: moderate

Finding positive gains reduces depressive symptoms and burden and promotespsychological well-being primarily through enhancing self-efficacy in controlling upsetting thoughts. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Ageing and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with declines in muscle function and cardiorespiratory fitness, resulting in an impaired capacity to perform daily activities and maintain independent functioning. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Benefit-finding is an efficacious intervention for depressive symptoms in Alzheimer caregivers, with strong effects in the medium-term post-intervention and possible moderate effects in the longer-term post-intervention. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

A deep‐learning retinal aging biomarker for cognitive decline and incident dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-03-01

Of 510 memory-clinic subjects(N = 155 cognitive decline), RetiPhenoAge associated with incident cognitive decline (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.64, p = 0.004), and incident dementia (SHR 1.43, 95% CI 1.02-2.01, p = 0.036). 5 key findings →

Participants: 155 Evidence: moderate

The study will provide evidence for evaluating and understanding the role of electroacupuncture in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: high

An Ensemble Learning Artificial Intelligence Model for Alzheimer's Disease Detection Using OCT

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Ophthalmology Science 2026-01-10

For detecting AD-dementia, the ensemble model achieved the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.943 (95% confidence interval, 0.906-0.980), 0.786 (95% confidence interval, 0.673-0.899), and 0.795 (95% confidence interval, 0.716-0.874) in the internal validation, External-1, and External-2, respectively. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate

11 variables were critical in the training phase, including educational level, depression, insomnia, age, Body Mass Index (BMI), medication count, gender, stenting, systolic blood pressure (sbp), neurosis and rapid eye movement. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,379 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.

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