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.

The incidence rate of dementia in Europe and North America has declined by 13% per decade over the past 25 years, consistently across studies. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 49,202 Evidence: moderate

Antihypertensive use was associated with decreased AD but not non-AD risk throughout late life. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 31,250 Evidence: moderate

Accelerated Brain Volume Loss Caused by Anti-β-Amyloid Drugs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Neurology 2023-03-27

These findings reveal the potential for anti-Aβ therapies to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy and provide new insight into the adverse impact of ARIA. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 8,062 Evidence: high

Older adults with higher triglyceride levels within the normal to high-normal range had a lower dementia risk and slower cognitive decline over time compared with individuals with lower triglyceride levels. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 13,976 Evidence: high

PDE5I initiation in men with ED was associated with a lower risk of AD, particularly in those most frequently issued prescriptions. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 269,725 Evidence: high

Symptom onset in autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Neurology 2014-06-13

Significant proportions of the observed variance in age at symptom onset in ADAD can be explained by family history and mutation type, providing empirical support for use of these data to estimate onset in clinical research. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,275 Evidence: low

ABBY: A phase 2 randomized trial of crenezumab in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Neurology 2018-04-25

Although prespecified criteria for testing treatment effects were not met, these data suggest a potential treatment effect in patients with mild AD treated with high-dose crenezumab. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 184 Evidence: high

INTREPAD: A randomized trial of naproxen to slow progress of presymptomatic Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Neurology 2019-04-05

In cognitively intact individuals at risk, sustained treatment with naproxen sodium 220 mg twice daily increases frequency of adverse health effects but does not reduce apparent progression of presymptomatic AD. 4 key findings →

Participants: 195 Evidence: high

MCI prevalence was 6.7% for ages 60-64, 8.4% for 65-69, 10.1% for 70-74, 14.8% for 75-79, and 25.2% for 80-84. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

We tested the hypothesis that plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) identifies asymptomatic carriers of familial frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD)-causing mutations at risk of disease progression. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 277 Evidence: moderate

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled studies at lower risk of bias comparing ChEI treatment with placebo or usual treatment, for 6 months or longer, in patients with dementia of any type. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 79,153 Evidence: high

CSF biomarkers of neuroinflammation and cerebrovascular dysfunction in early Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Neurology 2018-07-27

Neuroinflammation and cerebrovascular dysfunction are early events occurring already at presymptomatic stages of AD and contribute to disease progression. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 508 Evidence: moderate

Detailed comparison of amyloid PET and CSF biomarkers for identifying early Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Neurology 2015-09-09

The best CSF measures for identifying MCI-AD were Aβ42/total tau (t-tau) and Aβ42/hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau) (area under the curve [AUC] 0.93-0.94). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 122 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