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.

Regional amyloid accumulation and cognitive decline in initially amyloid-negative adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurology 2018-10-10

Our results indicate that assessing regional changes in amyloid, particularly in posterior cortical regions, can aid in the early detection of subclinical amyloid-related decline in episodic memory as early as middle age. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Racial disparities in dementia may be reduced by prevention and management of disease and promoting educational attainment among blacks and Hispanics. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Simultaneously evaluating resting-state brain glucose metabolism and intrinsic functional activity has potential to impact the clinical neurosciences of Alzheimer Disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Digital technology is transforming the development of drugs for Alzheimer's disease and was the topic of the Alzheimer's Association's Research Roundtable on its May 23-24, 2017 meeting. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major neurodegenerative disease and the most common cause of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Antemortem behavioural and anatomic abnormalities have largely been associated with right hemisphere disease in behavioural-variant frontotemporal dementia, but post-mortem neuropathological examination of bilateral hemispheres remains to be defined. 5 key findings →

Participants: 26 Evidence: low

Rich club disturbances of the human connectome from subjective cognitive decline to Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Theranostics 2018-05-11

We demonstrated that rich club organization was disrupted, with reduced structural connectivity among rich club nodes, in aMCI and d-AD patients but remained stable in SCD patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 62 Evidence: low

The R47H variant of the Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) significantly increases the risk for late onset Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

CSF sTREM2 increased with systemic and CNS HIV-1 disease severity, with the highest levels found in patients with HIV-associated dementia (HAD). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

CSF tau and β-amyloid predict cerebral synucleinopathy in autopsied Lewy body disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurology 2018-02-21

Patients with autopsy-confirmed LBD (n = 24) and autopsy-confirmed Alzheimer disease (AD) (n = 23) and cognitively normal (n = 36) controls were studied. 4 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: low

The ability of Alzheimer's disease (AD) cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers (amyloid β peptide 1-42, total tau, and phosphorylated tau) to discriminate AD from related disorders is limited. 4 key findings →

Participants: 367 Evidence: low

The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) was developed in the 1980s to assess the level of cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Data from 2,133 participants with autopsy-confirmed AD (i.e., at least Braak neurofibrillary tangle stages III to VI and CERAD neuritic plaque score moderate to frequent) were obtained from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC). 4 key findings →

Participants: 194 Evidence: low

Visinin-like protein-1 (VILIP-1) and chitinase-3-like protein 1 (CHI3L1 or YKL-40) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are newly discovered markers indicating neuronal damage and microglial activation, respectively. 4 key findings →

Participants: 121 Evidence: low

Dysbiosis of intestinal microbiota in the elderly can cause a leaky gut, which may result in silent systemic inflammation and promote neuroinflammation - a relevant pathomechanism in the early course of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

Dominance of 4R over three-repeat (exon 10-) tau isoforms contrasts with earlier reports of R406W patients and was not sufficiently explained by the presence of H1/H2 haplotypes in two of the autopsied patients. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review 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