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.

APOE4 homozygozity represents a distinct genetic form of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Nature medicine 2024-05-06

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of APOE4 homozygosity on Alzheimer's disease (AD) by examining its clinical, pathological and biomarker changes to see whether APOE4 homozygotes constitute a distinct, genetically determined form of AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,297 Evidence: low

Our prediction model was internally evaluated based on five-fold cross-validation on discrimination and calibration, and it was further compared with existing prediction scales. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,416 Evidence: moderate

The plush toy used in this study offered marginally greater value for money than PARO in improving agitation. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 415 Evidence: high

The eMERGE (electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics) Network is an NHGRI-supported consortium of five institutions to explore the utility of DNA repositories coupled to Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems for advancing discovery in genome science. eMERGE also includes a special emphasis on the ethical, legal and social issues related to these endeavors. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Controversies persist regarding the association between blood pressure (BP) and the risks of cognitive impairment and dementia due to inconsistent definitions of BP exposure and varying population characteristics. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

If the associations we observed are causal, then air pollution from traffic might be an important risk factor for vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,806 Evidence: moderate

The potential determinants of cognitive decline identified in this study, in particular modifiable risk factors, should be tested in the context of randomised controlled trials. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 626 Evidence: high

A clinico-pathological study of subtypes in Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2009-09-16

We have carried out a systematic review of the case files of 242 donors with pathologically verified Parkinson's disease at the Queen Square Brain Bank for Neurological Disorders in an attempt to corroborate the data-driven subtype classification proposed by Lewis and colleagues (Heterogeneity of Parkinson's disease in the early clinical stages using a data driven approach. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

For early detection of Alzheimer's disease, it is important to find biomarkers with predictive value for disease progression and clinical manifestations, such as cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 282 Evidence: moderate

The neuropathological profile of mild cognitive impairment (MCI): a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2011-12-06

Whether mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has a distinct neuropathological profile that reflects an intermediate state between no cognitive impairment and dementia is not clear. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 162 Evidence: high

Core cerebrospinal fluid biomarker profile in cerebral amyloid angiopathy: A meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Neurology 2018-01-31

We systematically searched PubMed for eligible studies reporting data on CSF biomarkers reflecting amyloid precursor protein metabolism (Aβ42, Aβ40), neurodegeneration (t-tau), and tangle pathology (p-tau) in symptomatic sporadic CAA cohorts vs controls and patients with Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 59 Evidence: high

TREM2 is a transmembrane receptor that is predominantly expressed by microglia in the central nervous system. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,027 Evidence: moderate

Increasing evidence suggests an important role of liver function in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,581 Evidence: moderate

An increased tau positron emission tomography (PET) signal in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) has been observed in older individuals in the absence of amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,093 Evidence: moderate

PE-treated patients performed significantly better than placebo for the co-primary endpoints: change from baseline of Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL; P = .03; 52% less decline) with a trend for Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog; P = .06; 66% less decline) scores at month 14. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Vitamins and minerals play multiple functions within the central nervous system which may help to maintain brain health and optimal cognitive functioning. 4 key findings →

Participants: 28 Evidence: high

In this single-center observational study, we included all individuals who visited the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam and had a clinical diagnosis of subjective cognitive decline (SCD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or probable AD dementia and were A+. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 520 Evidence: moderate

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is an ongoing, longitudinal, multicenter study designed to develop clinical, imaging, genetic, and biochemical biomarkers for the early detection and tracking of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 400 Evidence: moderate

Peripheral GFAP and NfL as early biomarkers for dementia: longitudinal insights from the UK Biobank

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. BMC medicine 2024-05-13

Peripheral glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light chain (NfL) are sensitive markers of neuroinflammation and neuronal damage. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 48,542 Evidence: moderate

¹⁸F-FDFG uptake by brain tissue as measured by positron emission tomography (PET) is a well-established method for assessment of brain function in people with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 14 Evidence: high

↑ 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