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.

ARTS is associated with vascular risk factors, MCI, dementia, and stroke

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-06-30

Higher ARTS score was associated (all ps < 0.01) with incident MCI (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.29), dementia (HR = 1.33), and stroke (HR = 1.52) and with diastolic/systolic blood pressure, self-reported hypertension, claudication, congestive heart failure, smoking, and glomerular filtration rate in the combined sample. 5 key findings →

Participants: 707 Evidence: low

Inequalities in the Duration and Lifetime Risk of Dementia in the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Demography 2025-07-31

Dementia prevalence exceeds 40% for individuals in advanced old age, but that figure is not informative about the lifetime risk of ever having dementia or the risk of having dementia for different durations. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Virtual data collection was highly feasible in both studies, successfully engaging participants in ADRD research, including those from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate

In 2023, there were 205,507 people with dementia in the CPRD database, 40,244 with Parkinson's disease, 3515 with MND and 1672 with Huntington's disease. 5 key findings →

Participants: 205,507 Evidence: low

The crude prevalence of dementia significantly increased from 1985 to 2012 (6.7% in 1985, 5.7% in 1992, 7.1% in 1998, 12.5% in 2005, and 17.9% in 2012, p for trend < 0.01), but then decreased significantly from 2012 to 2022 (15.8% in 2017 and 12.1% in 2022; p for trend < 0.01). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 803 Evidence: moderate

During aging, there is a progressive impairment of immune cell function that triggers the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines causing the so-called “inflammaging”. 3 key findings →

Participants: 235 Evidence: moderate

Among a cohort of 118 006 individuals, the incident rate (IR) of dementia was 0.56/1000 person-years over a median follow-up period of 1.54 years among SGLT-2i users compared with 2.67/1000 person-years in DPP-4i users, over a median follow-up period of 1.79 years. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

In the cohort, 39.2% (67/171) tested positive by α-syn SAA. α-syn SAA positivity was more frequently detected alone than in combination with biomarkers of AD pathology (25.1% vs. 14.0%). α-syn SAA+ status was independently associated with higher odds of fluctuating cognition (OR 2.99, 95%CI 1.46–6.25, p = 0.012), visual hallucinations (OR 2.41, 95%CI 1.24–4.75, p = 0.027), extrapyramidal signs (OR 4.57, 95%CI 2.35–9.11, p < 0.001) and akinetic mutism (OR 3.77, 95%CI 1.22–12.82, p = 0.038). 5 key findings →

Participants: 171 Evidence: moderate

Among 322 participants (48.8% women; mean age 71.4 ± 6.4 years), moderate-to-severe OSA (apnea–hypopnea index [AHI] ≥ 15) was identified in 48.49%, despite the absence of prior diagnoses. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 322 Evidence: low

We observed that existing AI-assisted dietary assessment tools are integrated with mobile/web-based applications to provide a user-friendly interface. 5 key findings →

Participants: 17,613 Evidence: low

Early identification of individuals at increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a pre-dementia state, can provide a critical window for prompt intervention to prevent or reverse disease progression. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 87 Evidence: moderate

All groups showed significantly increased brain-PAD, and the median (IQR) brain-PAD was 4.3 (5.4) years in MCI, 6.3 (6.2) years in AD, and 5.0 (6.5) years in DLB. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 185 Evidence: low

After deduplication and screening of 8893 records, we included 109 studies describing a wide array of wearable or portable DHTs that obtained digital biomarkers. 5 key findings →

Participants: 109 Evidence: low

Hypertension is known to be a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, but its relationship with cognitive impairment and dementia is an emerging area of study. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are progressive adult-onset neurodegenerative diseases with overlapping pathological and genetic origins. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Evidence for divergent cortical organisation in Parkinson’s disease and Lewy Body Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Nature Communications 2025-11-25

Dementia is a defining feature of Lewy body disease: its timing and onset distinguish different clinical diagnoses, and its effect on quality of life is profound. 1 key finding →

Participants: 108 Evidence: low

Males were more likely than females to present with two or more core DLB clinical features 2 years prior to obtaining a diagnosis of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Preclinical Catecholaminergic Biomarkers of Central Lewy Body Diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of Clinical Neurology 2026-01-01

In the central Lewy body diseases (LBDs) Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), by the time parkinsonism or cognitive dysfunction manifests, substantial central neurodegeneration has already occurred. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a leading neurodegenerative disorder, progresses from an intermediary stage known as Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), characterized by measurable cognitive decline with retained functional independence. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Detecting Alzheimer's disease (AD) in its earliest stages, particularly during an onset of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), remains challenging due to the overlap of initial symptoms with normal aging processes. 3 key findings →

Participants: 78 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