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.

APOE3 Christchurch Heterozygosity and Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2024-06-20

Clinical data supported a delayed onset of cognitive impairment in persons who were heterozygous for the APOE3 Ch variant in a kindred with a high prevalence of autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,077 Evidence: moderate

Plasma Phosphorylated Tau 217 to Identify Preclinical Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-11-01

Participants had a mean (SD) age of 66.9 (9.9) years; 971 (33.3%) were Aβ positive by either CSF or PET, 1667 (57.2%) were women, and 1108 (38.1%) carried at least 1 APOE ε4 allele. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,916 Evidence: high

Circulating NfL and GFAP may, independently and jointly, provide useful clinical insight regarding dementia risk and prognosis. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,712 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

Among the 1453 participants in the Framingham dementia study sample, the mean (SD) age was 75 (7) years; 792 (54.5%) were female. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,453 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer Disease Blood Biomarkers in Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2023-04-01

In this case-control study, blood biomarkers indicative of AD pathology demonstrated different dynamics of change after cardiac arrest. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 80 Evidence: high

In participants with early symptomatic AD, zagotenemab failed to achieve significant slowing of clinical disease progression compared with placebo. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 360 Evidence: high

Blood Astrocyte Biomarkers in Alzheimer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Neurology 2024-07-10

We demonstrated significant elevations in blood GFAP and YKL-40 levels in patients on the AD continuum compared with CU individuals. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 3,366 Evidence: high

Increased expression of BIN1 mediates Alzheimer genetic risk by modulating tau pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2013-02-12

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified a region upstream the BIN1 gene as the most important genetic susceptibility locus in Alzheimer's disease (AD) after APOE. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Analysis confirmed the association of APOE with earlier AAO (P = 3.3 × 10(-96)), with associations in CR1 (rs6701713, P = 7.2 × 10(-4)), BIN1 (rs7561528, P = 4.8 × 10(-4)), and PICALM (rs561655, P = 2.2 × 10(-3)) reaching statistical significance (P Conclusions and relevance We confirmed an association of APOE (OMIM 107741) variants with AAO among affected participants with LOAD and observed novel associations of CR1 (OMIM 120620), BIN1 (OMIM 601248), and PICALM (OMIM 603025) with AAO. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 9,162 Evidence: high

Etanercept in Alzheimer disease: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Neurology 2015-05-01

This study showed that subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg/wk) was well tolerated in this small group of patients with Alzheimer disease dementia, but a larger more heterogeneous group needs to be tested before recommending its use for broader groups of patients. 4 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: high

There was no difference in the age (mean [SD], 74.17 [7.96] years), sex (12 women [67%]), or baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score (mean [SD], 19.39 [3.24]) between the crossover (n = 9) and open-label groups (n = 9). 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

In this review of 56 RCTs for AD involving 39 575 participants, 23 348 women (59.0%) were included. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 100 Evidence: high

Goals-of-care documentation during the intervention phase occurred among 3744 of 6023 patients (62.2%) compared with 2396 of 4779 patients (50.1%) in the usual care phase (P Conclusions and relevance In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial of older adults, a GOC video intervention delivered by PCEs resulted in higher rates of GOC documentation compared with usual care, including among Black or African American individuals, Hispanic or Latino individuals, non-English speakers, and people living with Alzheimer disease and related dementias. 3 key findings →

Participants: 802 Evidence: high

Low-Dose Lithium for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2026-04-01

Among 80 participants (mean [SD] age, lithium: 72.93 [8.77] years; placebo: 71.22 [6.47] years; 56% female), none of the 6 coprimary outcomes met the prespecified significance threshold. 2 key findings →

Participants: 170 Evidence: high

Little is known on how risk factors of younger cohorts will play out in the future burden of multi-morbidity (two or more concurrent long-term conditions). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 303,589 Evidence: moderate

Dementia risk after traumatic brain injury vs nonbrain trauma: the role of age and severity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2014-12-01

Of these, 4361 (8.4%) developed dementia compared with 6610 patients with NTT (5.9%) (P Conclusions and relevance Among patients evaluated in the ED or inpatient settings, those with moderate to severe TBI at 55 years or older or mild TBI at 65 years or older had an increased risk of developing dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 164,661 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