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.

Individuals with neuropsychiatric, cardiovascular, and sensory impairment/cancer patterns are at increased risk for dementia and APOE ε4, and inflammation may further increase the risk. 3 key findings →

Participants: 2,478 Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment and dementia: the importance of modifiable risk factors

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Deutsches Arzteblatt international 2011-11-04

Modifiable risk factors for MCI should be sought (at the very latest) in persons who already have MCI, as their optimal treatment may improve these patients' cognitive performance or keep the existing deficits from progressing. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The deep-learning time-to-event model predicted individual subjects' progression to AD dementia with a concordance index of 0.762 on 439 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative testing MCI subjects with follow-up duration from 6 to 78 months (quartiles: [24, 42, 54]) and a concordance index of 0.781 on 40 Australian Imaging Biomarkers and Lifestyle Study of Aging testing MCI subjects with follow-up duration from 18 to 54 months (quartiles: [18, 36, 54]). 2 key findings →

Participants: 2,146 Evidence: low

LIBRA might be a useful tool to identify individuals for primary prevention interventions of dementia in midlife, and maybe in late life, but not in the oldest-old. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,256 Evidence: low

Atrial cardiomyopathy, characterized by abnormalities in atrial structure and function, is associated with increased risk of adverse cardiovascular and neurocognitive outcomes, independent of atrial fibrillation. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

During follow-up, 203 cases of hospitalisation with dementia were identified. 5 key findings →

Participants: 151 Evidence: moderate

The neuropathological diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Molecular neurodegeneration 2019-08-02

Alzheimer's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disease most often associated with memory deficits and cognitive decline, although less common clinical presentations are increasingly recognized. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Comparison of multiple tau-PET measures as biomarkers in aging and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. NeuroImage 2017-06-03

The recent development of tau-specific positron emission tomography (PET) tracers enables in vivo quantification of regional tau pathology, one of the key lesions in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Visual hallucinations in Lewy body disease relate to Lewy bodies in the temporal lobe

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2002-02-01

Consensus opinion characterizes dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) as a progressive dementing illness, with significant fluctuations in cognition, visual hallucinations and/or parkinsonism. 4 key findings →

Participants: 29 Evidence: low

Depression was the most common psychiatric diagnosis in all groups. 2 key findings →

Participants: 69 Evidence: low

To assess the value of exosomal miRNAs as biomarkers for Alzheimer disease (AD), the expression of microRNAs was measured in a plasma fraction enriched in exosomes by differential centrifugation, using Illumina deep sequencing. 4 key findings →

Participants: 35 Evidence: moderate

Blood-brain barrier breakdown in Alzheimer disease and other neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2018-01-29

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is a continuous endothelial membrane within brain microvessels that has sealed cell-to-cell contacts and is sheathed by mural vascular cells and perivascular astrocyte end-feet. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Extent and distribution of white matter hyperintensities in normal aging, MCI, and AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2006-12-01

Differences in white matter hyperintensities (WMH) associated with increasing cognitive impairment appear related to both extent and spatial location. 5 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 26 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