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.

Plasma Biomarkers for Neocortical Tau Burden

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2026-08-10

The study included 560 amyloid-positive participants (BioFINDER: n = 431; mean [SD] age, 73.6 [7.0] years; 212 female [49.2%] and 219 male [51.8%]; TRIAD: n = 129; mean [SD] age, 70.4 [8.3] years; 76 female [58.9%] and 53 male [41.1%]). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 431 Evidence: moderate

In all 6 patients (3 women and 3 men; mean age 61.8 years), the underlying clinical phenotype was associated with the regional distribution of the [18F]AV-1451 signal. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neuropathologic basis of age-associated brain atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2013-05-01

Ventricular volume trajectory is more sensitive than total brain and hippocampal volume trajectories as a marker of accruing Alzheimer disease and vascular pathology in elderly individuals. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Moreover, the presence of Aβ+ was associated with an elevated [18F]-AV-1451 SUVR in AD cortical signature regions (Aβ+ participants: mean [SD], 1.3 [0.3]; Aβ- participants: 1.1 [0.1]; F = 4.3, P = .04) but not in the hippocampus. 3 key findings →

Participants: 59 Evidence: low

Fluid and imaging biomarkers of Alzheimer disease (AD) are often used interchangeably, but some biomarkers may reveal earlier stages of disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 322 Evidence: low

This cross-sectional study evaluates the performance of the US Food and Drug Administration–cleared phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217) to β-amyloid 42 ratio cut points used to detect amyloid pathology associated with Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Regional Differences in Dementia Incidence Among US Veterans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-06-09

Among the 1 268 599 participants (mean age, 73.9 [SD, 6.1] years; n = 25 335 [2%] female), dementia incidence rates per 1000 person-years were lowest in the Mid-Atlantic (11.2; 95% CI, 11.1-11.4) and highest in the Southeast (14.0; 95% CI, 13.8-14.2). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 25 Evidence: moderate

Of 482 participants in the safety population, 140 of 158 participants (88.6%) assigned to placebo, 117 of 166 participants (70.5%) to 224 mg of edonerpic maleate, and 120 of 158 participants (76.0%) to 448 mg of edonerpic maleate completed the trial. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 482 Evidence: high

Elevated LDL-C levels were associated with higher probability of having EOAD, and EOAD cases were enriched for rare coding variants in APOB, which codes for the major protein of LDL-C. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

High-Level Alzheimer Disease Neuropathological Change Following Iatrogenic Exposure

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2026-03-30

The study describes 4 males who developed dementia following confirmed or suspected c-hGH treatment in childhood (age at symptom onset between 47 and 60 years) with cognitive syndromes characterized by prominent language involvement. 4 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

The Study of Knowledge and Reactions to Amyloid Testing, a substudy of an AD prevention trial, involved 2 semistructured telephone interviews with 80 participants recruited from 9 study sites: 50 received elevated and 30 received not elevated amyloid PET scan results. 5 key findings →

Participants: 80 Evidence: low

White matter hyperintensities contribute to the presentation of AD and, in the context of significant amyloid deposition, may provide a second hit necessary for the clinical manifestation of the disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Diagnostic change occurred in 46 patients (79%) having both a previous diagnosis of AD and an amyloid-negative scan (P Conclusions and relevance Amyloid PET in addition to routine assessment in patients with cognitive impairment has a significant effect on diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and drug treatment. 4 key findings →

Participants: 228 Evidence: low

Among 124 876 cases and controls, genome-wide conjunction analyses of ALS, FTD, PD, AD, CBD, and PSP revealed significant genetic overlap between ALS and FTD at known ALS loci: rs13302855 and rs3849942 (nearest gene, C9orf72; P = .03 for rs13302855 and P = .005 for rs3849942) and rs4239633 (nearest gene, UNC13A; P = .03). 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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.

1,045 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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    Where this research is being discussed: events

Last updated