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.

DNS conditions, particularly dementia, were associated with longer survival among non-oncologic HBPC patients. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

More than 50% of older adults with AD/ADRD visit the emergency department (ED) each year [3, 4] and those who do are seriously ill, have significant healthcare costs (e.g., hospital admissions, repeat ED visits) and mortality [4-6]. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Various approaches to advance care planning are in use and generally acceptable also for persons with dementia and their care partners. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

WMH burden positively correlated to Neurofilament-Light (NfL) and pTau181. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 583 Evidence: low

Limited data suggest nursing home (NH) Alzheimer's special care units (ASCUs) may improve care and outcomes among residents with dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 13,207 Evidence: low

Coverage and Prior Authorization Policies for Semaglutide and Tirzepatide in Medicare Part D Plans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-08-29

This cross-sectional study examines trends in coverage of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, semaglutide and tirzepatide, and prior authorization requirements among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related neuropathology, characterized by amyloid plaques with amyloid β (Aβ) and neurofibrillary tangles with tau accumulation. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 15 Evidence: low

The potential role of aluminum (Al) in the onset and progression of Alzheimer disease (AD) remains among the most enduring and divisive controversies in environmental neurotoxicology. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Treatment options for dementia mainly comprise of symptomatic treatment, as no disease-modifying therapy currently exists that directly reduces the pathology. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Delirium is a complex and multifactorial condition associated with long-term cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

The ideal biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) should detect a fundamental feature of neuropathology and be validated in neuropathologically-confirmed cases; it should have a sensitivity >80% for detecting AD and a specificity of >80% for distinguishing other dementias; it should be reliable, reproducible, non-invasive, simple to perform, and inexpensive.

The enzyme argininosuccinate synthetase (ASS) is the rate limiting enzyme in the metabolic pathway leading from L-citrulline to L-arginine, the physiological substrate of all isoforms of nitric oxide synthases (NOS). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Generated MR images from florbetapir PET showed signal patterns that were visually similar to the real MR. The structural similarity index between real and generated MR was 0.91 ± 0.04. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Flortaucipir uptake distinguished individuals with PCA and amnestic AD dementia early in the symptomatic course. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In a previous study, we found that human neural stem cells (HNSCs) exposed to high concentrations of secreted amyloid-precursor protein (sAPP) in vitro differentiated into mainly astrocytes, suggesting that pathological alterations in APP processing during neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) may prevent neuronal differentiation of HNSCs. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Abbreviations Aβ: β-amyloid; AD: Alzheimer disease; AIF1/IBA1: allograft inflammatory factor 1; ALP: autophagy-lysosomal pathway; APP: amyloid beta precursor protein; ATP6V1B1/V-ATPase V1b1: ATPase H+ transporting V1 subunit B1; AVs: autophagy vacuoles; BAF: bafilomycin A 1 ; CFC: contextual/cued fear conditioning assay; CHX: Ca 2+ /H + exchanger; CTF-β: carboxy-terminal fragment derived from β-secretase; CTSD: cathepsin D; fAD: familial Alzheimer disease; GFAP: glial fibrillary acidic protein; LAMP1: lysosomal associated membrane protein 1; LTP: long-term potentiation; MCOLN1/TRPML1: mucolipin 1; MAP1LC3B/LC3B: microtubule associated protein 1 light chain 3 beta; MAPT: microtubule associated protein tau; MWM: Morris water maze; NFT: neurofibrillary tangles; PFC: prefrontal cortex; PSEN1: presenilin 1; SQSTM1/p62: sequestosome 1; TBS: theta burst stimulation; TEM: transmission electronic microscopy; TPCN2/TPC2: two pore segment channel 2; WT: wild-type; V-ATPase: vacuolar type H + -ATPase. 1 key finding →

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