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.

Area Deprivation Index as a Surrogate of Resilience in Aging and Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Frontiers in Psychology 2022-06-29

Area deprivation index (ADI), a tool used to capture the multidimensional neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage across populations, is highly relevant to the field of aging and Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Approximately 2% of those aged ≥60 years had dementia, lower than published estimates. 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Evidence: moderate

After adjusting for multi-morbidity and relocation-related selection bias, we saw that people living in regions with the highest tertile of income (HR = 0.87, p < 0.001), and who had the highest tertile of remaining life expectancy at age 60 (HR = 0.93, p = 0.012) had lower dementia risks. 5 key findings →

Participants: 250,000 Evidence: low

ADI was significantly higher in this cohort ( M = 3.84, SD = 2.58) than in the surrounding county ( M = 2.79, SD = 1.88, p = .000). 5 key findings →

Participants: 204 Evidence: moderate

Mapping social health and dementia risk: A register-based study of older adults in Finland

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Social Science & Medicine 2026-03-05

This study investigates the role of individual and area-level social health factors in shaping geographic variation in dementia incidence among older adults in Finland. 1 key finding →

Participants: 185,712 Evidence: low

In the LA cohort only, higher WMHs load was associated with greater GM atrophy across all groups (HCs, AD, bvFTD), with a specific neurodegenerative pattern involving orbitofrontal, cingulate, and temporal areas. 5 key findings →

Participants: 402 Evidence: moderate

MAs were younger, more likely to be female, less educated, had higher ADI scores, performed worse on trails B (all p < 0.05), and had lower prevalence of APOE4 + when compared to NHWs (p < 0.0001). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,312 Evidence: moderate

The cluster analysis identified 3 distinct groups: Group 1 was low resource/high distress (n = 215); Group 2 was high resource/low distress (n = 248); and Group 3 was low resource/low distress (n = 353; Figure 1). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 215 Evidence: moderate

ε4, socioeconomic status, physical activity, smoking, subjective cognitive decline, and various cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

The Centiloid method demonstrates strong intertracer and interscanner harmonization when standardized to the 11C-Pittsburgh compound B reference, with high correlation (r2 > 0.9) across 18F-labeled tracers, including florbetapir, flutemetamol, and florbetaben. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

A total of 30 variants were overrepresented in four pathways: presenilin/Alzheimer disease, cadherin/WNT signaling, gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor, and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) signaling. 5 key findings →

Participants: 204 Evidence: low

Higher AD-PRS was associated with faster CD in the full clinical cohort and in biomarker subset, independently of APOE genotype. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 7,233 Evidence: moderate

Lysosomal proteomics reveals mechanisms of neuronal APOE4-associated lysosomal dysfunction

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Autophagy 2025-10-17

: Aβ-β-amyloid; AD-Alzheimer disease; APMS-affinity purification mass spectrometry; APOE-apolipoprotein E; APP-amyloid beta precursor protein; BafA1-bafilomycin A1; CMA-chaperone-mediated autophagy; COP-coatomer; ER-endoplasmic reticulum; ERAD-endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation; ERGIC-endoplasmic reticulum-Golgi intermediate compartment; FCCP-carbonyl cyanide p-trifluoromethoxyphenylhydrazone; GABA-gamma-aminobutyric acid; GFP-green fluorescent protein; GPI-glycerophosphoinositol; GPN-glycyl-L-phenylalanine 2-naphthylamide; HA-hemagglutinin protein tag; iPSC-induced pluripotent stem cells; LAMP1-lysosomal associated membrane protein 1; LGALS3BP-galectin 3 binding protein; LysoIP-lysosomal immunoprecipitation; MAPT-microtubule associated protein tau; MR-CTSB-magic red cathepsin B; MS-mass spectrometry; NFT-neurofibrillary tangles; PCA-principal component analysis; PLA-proximity ligation assay; PSEN1-presenilin 1; PSEN2-presenilin 2; p-MAPT/Tau-phospho-MAPT/tau; ROS-reactive oxygen species; RT-qPCR-reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction; SEM-standard error of the mean; siRNA-short interfering RNA; SRCR-scavenger receptor cysteine-rich domain; TMED-transmembrane p24 trafficking protein; TMEM192-transmembrane protein 192. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Anti-Amyloid Monoclonal Antibodies in Early Alzheimer Disease: Lecanemab and Donanemab

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology International 2026-09-11

Pivotal trials demonstrated statistically significant but modest average slowing of decline: Clarity AD showed a 0.45-point between-group difference in CDR-SB worsening at 18 months, and TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 showed a 3.25-point iADRS difference in the low/medium-tau population at 76 weeks. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Nickel-based nanomaterials (NBNs) have seen a surge in usage across a variety of applications. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

(cobalamin)-dependent pathways. Supplementation of B vitamins has been shown to effectively reduce plasma homocysteine levels. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Exercise-induced oxidative stress results from the overproduction of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (ROS/RNS) during intense physical activity, potentially impairing muscle function and recovery. 2 key findings →

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