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.

Cerebrospinal fluid biomarker signature in Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative subjects

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Annals of Neurology 2009-03-19

CSF A beta(1-42) was the most sensitive biomarker for AD in the autopsy cohort of CSF samples: receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.913 and sensitivity for AD detection of 96.4%. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), Lewy body diseases (LBD), and the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia (ALS-FTD) spectrum are defined by the accumulation of specific misfolded protein aggregates. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 2,600 Evidence: high

Among eligible participants (n = 705,061), 264,294 individuals (37.5% of eligible participants) initiated any statin during 2001-2010 ("initiators"), of whom 249,613 (94.4%) were matched with 255,937 unique noninitiators to create the analytic sample (322,358 unique participants; mean age at baseline = 67.4 years; 55.1% female). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 322,358 Evidence: high

No significant association was found between MHT use and risk of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,016,055 Evidence: moderate

Our findings showed significant associations between hearing and vision impairments and increased risks of all-cause and cause-specific dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 937,908 Evidence: moderate

Annual Wellness Visits and Early Dementia Diagnosis Among Medicare Beneficiaries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-10-01

These findings indicate that AWV recipients had a timelier first MCI diagnosis than those who did not receive an AWV, but first ADRD diagnosis differed little. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 549,516 Evidence: moderate

Our findings suggest that statins might be associated with a lower risk of incident AD among individuals with the APOE ε4 allele. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 4,807 Evidence: early

In this cohort study, high adherence to a flavonoid-rich diet score was associated with a lower risk of dementia, with reductions more pronounced in individuals with a high genetic risk, hypertension, and depressive symptoms. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 121,986 Evidence: moderate

Educational Attainment and Dementia: Mediation by Mid-Life Vascular Risk Factors

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Annals of Neurology 2023-04-27

A substantial proportion of the relationship between education and dementia was mediated through mid-life vascular risk factors. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 13,368 Evidence: moderate

In the cohort analyses, 891 incident dementia cases were identified over 166,762 person-years. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 207,981 Evidence: moderate

New PRSs for dementia significantly improve risk-prediction performance, but still account for less risk than APOE genotype overall. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 12,031 Evidence: moderate

Microglia modulate Aβ-dependent astrocyte reactivity in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Nature Neuroscience 2025-11-06

Experimental evidence suggests that activated microglia induce astrocyte reactivity in neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 352 Evidence: moderate

Biomarkers were measured in 431 Black and 583 White participants (mean age of 77 and 80 years and 17% and 21% of men, respectively), generating a balanced sample of 366:366. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,014 Evidence: moderate

Remote Blood Biomarkers of Longitudinal Cognitive Outcomes in a Population Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2020-09-29

Higher concentrations of serum biomarkers were associated with the development of clinical AD; especially, the time-specific associations were notable: t-tau 8 to 16 years, and Nf-L and GFAP 4 to 8 years prior to clinical AD. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,327 Evidence: moderate

Of 386 participants, 199 (52%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 68 (8) years. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 113 Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal Changes in Blood Biomarkers of Clinical Alzheimer Disease in a Biracial Population Sample

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Neurology 2022-11-29

Blood biomarkers showed significant longitudinal changes corresponding to cognitive decline, clinical AD, and structural MRI characteristics. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,327 Evidence: moderate

Early tau deposition was elevated in women compared with men in individuals on the Alzheimer disease trajectory. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 89 Evidence: low

Longitudinal Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarker Changes in Preclinical Alzheimer Disease During Middle Age

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2015-09-01

Within-person changes in CSF biomarkers were also compared with changes in cortical PiB binding and progression to a CDR higher than 0 at follow-up. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 169 Evidence: moderate

Prevalence and Clinical Phenotype of Quadruple Misfolded Proteins in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2020-10-01

However, the clinical presentation, associated factors, frequency in community-based cohorts, genetic characteristics, and cognitive trajectories associated with the quadruple misfolded proteins phenotype are not well understood. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 375 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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