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.

(1) To investigate the association between age at diabetes diagnosis and the incidence of all-cause dementia (ACD), Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and vascular dementia (VD) in individuals with diabetes. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

We identified three main themes of palliative hope in late-stage dementia: 1) Life is good and there is still time, 2) Agency and identity are not lost, and 3) Death will be good and professional support is available. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Proteostasis and Neuroinflammation in Alzheimer’s Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 2025-09-18

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia in older adults, marked by a gradual and irreversible deterioration of cognitive abilities, including memory and thinking skills. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

IBC effectively ameliorates AD pathology through autophagy-mediated clearance of Aβ and suppressing neuroinflammation in 5x-FAD mice. 4 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: low

Nef is a key player in neuroinflammation and myelin impairment associated with neuroHIV

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Frontiers in Neurology 2025-03-12

In particular, the severity of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) has been greatly reduced, significantly decreasing the prevalence of HIV-associated dementia [1]. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) represents a critical stage between normal aging and dementia, with limited effective interventions currently available. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent evidence indicates the presence of micro- and nanoplastics in the human brain, with higher accumulation observed in patients with dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Oxidative stress causes brain damage contributing to neurodegenerative and vascular diseases. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

pS396/pS404 (PHF1) tau vaccine outperforms pS199/pS202 (AT8) in rTg4510 tauopathy model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. npj Vaccines 2025-05-13

Tauopathies, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD), are histopathologically defined by the aggregation of hyperphosphorylated pathological tau (pTau) as neurofibrillary tangles in the brain. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

GRc exerted neuroprotective effects in VaD by targeting Stat3 and driving its dual-phosphorylation. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Tauopathies are neurodegenerative diseases characterized by accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau protein (P-tau). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

In plasma, most complement analytes were not significantly different between spFTD and HC; the exceptions were C4 and FB, significantly decreased in spFTD vs HC ( p = 0.0192 and p = 0.0181, respectively), suggesting complement consumption in classical and alternative pathways. 3 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

The amyloid hypothesis is the predominant model of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis, suggesting that amyloid beta (Aβ) peptide is the primary driver of neurotoxicity and a cascade of pathological events in the central nervous system. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The In Vitro Multifaceted Biological Activity of Catechins in Relation to Their Oxidation Potentials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Molecules 2026-04-17

In this study, the rank of multifaceted activity of catechin (C), epicatechin (EC), epigallocatechin (EGC), epicatechin-3-gallate (ECG) and epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) was addressed. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Insights From TgF344-AD, a Double Transgenic Rat Model in Alzheimer’s Disease Research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Physiological Research 2025-03-10

Alzheimer's disease (AD), a leading cause of dementia worldwide, is a multifactorial neurodegenerative disorder characterized by amyloid-beta plaques, tauopathy, neuronal loss, neuro-inflammation, brain atrophy, and cognitive deficits. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Tauopathies, including Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia with Parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 (FTDP-17), are characterized by the aberrant aggregation of tau protein into neurofibrillary tangles. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The average MIND-NL scores for the short FFQ (8·4 ( sd 1·8) points) and food records (6·7 ( sd 1·7) points) showed to be significantly different ( P 0·20) were observed for 10 out of 15 MIND-NL diet components. 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