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 viral-inflammatory hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease offers a new paradigm, yet interventions like antivirals and vaccination present a paradox that challenge therapeutic development. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) have a genetically determined form of Alzheimer's disease (AD) due to the amyloid precursor protein (APP) gene dose effect. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) increases the risk of dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 84 Evidence: high

= 0.279). No adverse events were reported. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

LIGHT will provide insight into the implementation and (cost-)effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention for indicated prevention in a memory clinic setting. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

There were 656 deaths, 1585 incidents of CVD and 165 dementia diagnoses during 17.2 years of follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,584 Evidence: moderate

This disease is associated with numerous restrictions for those affected but also for caregivers and society. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 200 Evidence: high

It remains a common yet underrecognised complication in older surgical patients, significantly influencing recovery, prolonging hospital stays and increasing healthcare costs and workload.1 Although traditionally peri-operative care has prioritised physical stabilisation, effectively addressing POD requires a holistic approach that also considers patients’ emotional and social well being.2 One well established strategy for managing delirium is the active involvement of family and caregivers. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

DAGs provide visual representations of assumptions made, and provide an objective approach to appropriate statistical adjustments. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Delirium: more than a marker of baseline vulnerability

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2026-05-01

Across several cohorts, delirium is emerging as an important prognostic signal, independent of chronic markers of baseline morbidity, that identifies patients at markedly increased risk of death or future dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,556 Evidence: moderate

Although intraoperative hypotension initially appeared to be associated with postoperative delirium, this association was no longer significant when accounting for temporal improvements in perioperative care. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,171 Evidence: moderate

Physician-delivered palliative care. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Descriptive statistics characterizing physician-delivered palliative care. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18,452 Evidence: low

Of 104 metabolites studied, glycodeoxycholic acid (GDCA) surpassed the false discovery rate and was associated the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale version 13 (ADAS-Cog13) score (β = 0.12, 95 % CI = 0.05-0.20, p = 0.001) and cognitive impairment determined by mini-mental status exam (MMSE) (OR = 2.11, 95 % CI = 1.41-3.15, p < 0.001). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 578 Evidence: moderate

Association between periodontal disease and Alzheimer's disease: a scoping review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2025-10-15

PD may be a modifiable risk factor for AD, and periodontal interventions could contribute to AD prevention and management. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 52 Evidence: moderate

PTI-125 Reduces Biomarkers of Alzheimer's Disease in Patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2020-01-01

Here we describe results of a Phase 2a study of a promising new drug candidate that significantly reversed all measured biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease, neurodegeneration and neuroinflammation. 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 13 Evidence: high

The idea of reserve against brain damage stems from the repeated observation that there does not appear to be a direct relationship between the degree of brain pathology or brain damage and the clinical manifestation of that damage.

A monoclonal antibody to the microtubule-associated protein tau (tau) labeled some neurofibrillary tangles and plaque neurites, the two major locations of paired-helical filaments (PHF), in Alzheimer disease brain.

The Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable convened a working group to review data on amyloid imaging related abnormalities (ARIA) in response to concerns raised by the Food and Drug Administration. 3 key findings →

↑ 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