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.

A significant drug-placebo difference on the ADAS-Cog12 favoring GV-971 was present at each measurement time point, measurable at the week 4 visit and continuing throughout the trial. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 818 Evidence: high

Increasing evidence suggests an association between pro-inflammatory diets and cognitive function. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,372 Evidence: moderate

Prevalence of post-stroke cognitive impairment in china: a community-based, cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. PloS one 2015-04-13

International hospital-based studies have indicated a high risk of cognitive impairment after stroke, evidence from community-based studies in China is scarce. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 599 Evidence: low

Plasma-based biomarkers would be potential biomarkers for early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) because they are more available and cost-effective than cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or neuroimaging. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 185 Evidence: moderate

With the advancement of anti-amyloid treatments for Alzheimer disease, accurate assays for amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology are essential. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 431 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive impairment and dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), pose a global health crisis, necessitating non-invasive biomarkers for early detection. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Among 225 patients (mean age 65.4 years, 54.2% male), MCR prevalence was 16.4%. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 225 Evidence: low

The primary outcome of this clinical trial is the change in the Vascular Dementia Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale from baseline to 12 months. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,052 Evidence: high

The results of gene set enrichment and gene set variation analyses indicated that immune-related pathways were upregulated in patients with VaD. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,620 Evidence: low

Mutations in the ANXA11 gene, encoding an RNA-binding protein, have been implicated in the pathogenesis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), but the underlying in vivo mechanisms remain unclear. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

AD patients exhibited a significant reduction in the water exchange rates across the BBB, whereas DLB patients showed a significant increase in BBB permeability to contrast agent. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Although the ASPR and ASIR remained stable or decreased globally, they both greatly increased in East Asia (ASPR: EAPC = 0.43; 95% CI 0.35, 0.51; ASIR: EAPC = 0.40; 95% CI 0.33, 0.47). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Emerging evidence indicates that globus pallidus (GP) function can be modulated by orexin-A in movement disorders, while its role in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) remains unclear. 4 key findings →

Participants: 25 Evidence: low

Exposure to accelerated epigenetic aging was significantly associated with a higher risk of transition from NC to MCI as well as progression from MCI to dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,671 Evidence: low

Both V3 width and plasma Hcy concentration were negatively correlated with MoCA scores in PD (r=-0.358, P<0.001; r=-0.187, P=0.013, respectively). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

(1) To investigate the association between age at diabetes diagnosis and the incidence of all-cause dementia (ACD), Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and vascular dementia (VD) in individuals with diabetes. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

↑ 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