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.

Eighteen members of the public-including patients, carers, and individuals with lived experience of both roles-along with two local board members and one representative from a statutory health and social care body, participated and were actively involved in developing the framework and co-producing outputs through structured small-group discussions. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

"Rapid-type" caregivers (n = 12) had a median age of 59 (range 45-73) years; 6 were female, and 9 were spouses. 5 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

BackgroundLet's Talk Tech (LTT) is a self-administered web intervention for people with memory loss and their care partners that supports decision-making about digital health technologies. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

In long-term care residents, ADL scores worsened by a mean of 0.29 points (95%CI = 0.27, 0.31) per 3 months and antihypertensive deprescribing did not impact this worsening (difference between groups -0.04 points every 3 months, 95%CI = -0.15, 0.06). 5 key findings →

Participants: 12,238 Evidence: low

End-of-life care in elderly patients with serious advanced illness sits at the intersection of patient autonomy, family involvement, clinical judgment, and resource allocation. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 358 Evidence: moderate

The glymphatic system, a vital brain perivascular network for waste clearance, hinges on the functionality of the aquaporin 4 (AQP4) water channel. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

This raises the suggestion that a decreased neurovascular coupling in the disease process of AD is related to comorbid small vessel disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 119 Evidence: moderate

Among 1154 participants (46% men, mean age 70.9±8.7 years), 92 (8%) developed stroke over a median follow-up of 8.6 years (Q1-Q3: 5.1-12.5). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,154 Evidence: moderate

=0.002). Early-onset CHD and genetic susceptibility are associated with a higher risk of incident dementia and a larger WMH volume. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 671 Evidence: moderate

Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) is associated with vascular cognitive impairment, dementia, and stroke. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 59 Evidence: low

Hyperhomocysteinemia (HHcy) is an established risk factor for cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 507 Evidence: moderate

The mean age of the participants was 68 ± 9 years and 39% were female. 5 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 759 Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) exhibit distinct neuropathological hallmarks, with AD defined by cortical amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, while VaD arises primarily from cerebrovascular disease (CeVD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 531 Evidence: moderate

The possible mediating role of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the relationship between alcohol use disorders (AUD) and the risk of early-onset (<age 65) and late-onset (≥age 65) dementia lacks formal investigation. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Bibliometric analysis is crucial in identifying research gaps and trends and guiding future studies to address unmet needs in understanding and modeling human physiology and pathology. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: low

BPs of [(11)C](R)PK11195 and [(11)C]PIB were significantly higher in the parietotemporal regions of AD patients than in ten healthy controls. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Antibodies to alpha-synuclein (AS) now provide a sensitive and specific method for the detection of Lewy bodies (LBs) and their use will allow a more accurate determination of the prevalence of LBs in Alzheimer's Disease (AD).

The Inflation Reduction Act Medicare Part D benefit redesign will reduce OOP drug spending for beneficiaries with dementia, resulting in potentially marked savings not only for low-income beneficiaries and beneficiaries with a high comorbidity burden but also for higher-income beneficiaries. 1 key finding →

Design: modelling Participants: 1,677 Evidence: moderate

Salivary Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Neurology and therapy 2019-12-12

The search for accessible and cost-effective biomarkers to complement current cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and imaging biomarkers in the accurate detection of Alzheimer disease (AD) and other common neurodegenerative disorders remains a challenging task. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Utilizing semantic intrusions to identify amyloid positivity in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Neurology 2018-08-03

SIs on the LASSI-L related to PSI and frPSI uniquely differentiated Amy+ and Amy- participants with aMCI and likely reflect deficits with inhibition and source memory in preclinical AD not captured by traditional cognitive measures. 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