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.

Decades of research have revealed numerous risk factors for mental disorders beyond genetics, but their consistency and magnitude remain uncer-tain. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 176 Evidence: high

Sixty consecutive patients with prodromal or mild AD were screened; 50 were randomized to gamma or sham tACS (mean [SD] age, 67.3 [7.8] years; 25 [50.0%] female and 25 [50.0%] male). 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

MPF (%WC, −2.06 (95% confidence interval (CI), −2.99, −1.13) and UPF (%WC, −1.05 (95% CI, −1.98, −0.13)) resulted in weight loss, with significantly greater %WC on MPF (Δ%WC, −1.01 (95% CI, −1.87, −0.14), P = 0.024; Cohen’s d , −0.48 (95% CI, −0.91, −0.06)). 2 key findings →

Participants: 55 Evidence: high

These results from the largest longitudinal cohort registry of patients with CAA-ri support the transient and potentially relapsing inflammatory nature of the clinical-radiologic acute manifestations of the disease and the effectiveness of slow oral tapering off after IV corticosteroid pulse therapy in preventing recurrences. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 113 Evidence: moderate

The MD is a scientifically supported dietary intervention with broad preventive and therapeutic benefits. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 84 Evidence: high

Mind the gap: from neurons to networks to outcomes in multiple sclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2021-01-12

MRI studies have provided valuable insights into the structure and function of neural networks, particularly in health and in classical neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Among dementia-like diseases, Alzheimer disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD) are two of the most frequent. 2 key findings →

Participants: 60 Evidence: low

The GGGGCC (G4C2) intronic repeat expansion within C9ORF72 is the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This systematic review aims to elucidate the neuropathological basis of the HIDA and psychosis domains, exploring whether distinct proteinopathies and neural circuit dysfunctions are associated with these symptoms. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Elevated blood levels of phosphorylated tau (p-tau) are diagnostic of Alzheimer disease and are associated with the deposition of amyloid-β in the cerebral neuropil. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

TAR DNA-binding protein (TDP-43, also known as TARDBP) is the major pathological protein in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Over the last decade, age-standardised dementia incidence estimated rates have decreased by 52.8 % for women and 53.1 % for males. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

We identified 132,968 individuals, of whom 12,088 with severe Zoster, 60,440 matched controls among the general population, and 60,440 matched controls among the hospitalised population. 5 key findings →

Participants: 132,968 Evidence: moderate

Brain connectivity in neurodegenerative diseases--from phenotype to proteinopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2014-10-07

Functional and structural connectivity measures, as assessed by means of functional and diffusion MRI, are emerging as potential intermediate biomarkers for Alzheimer disease (AD) and other disorders. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Childhood obesity is a growing global health concern, with established links to physical activity, nutrition, and, increasingly, to prenatal and perinatal factors. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

This study highlights the role of age, gender, APOE genotype, and depressive symptoms in the presentation and progression of cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

This joint Position Paper, developed by the Italian Expert Panel on Alzheimer convened by the Italian Society of Neurology with participation from multiple scientific societies, outlines strategic guidelines for reorganizing the patient journey in the era of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Making early and informative diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is highly important for planning timely and appropriate interventions aimed at dementia risk reduction. 3 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.

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