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.

American Indian Caregivers Policy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Fourth World Journal 2025-08-13

American Indian governments located in a region west of the Cascade mountain range and the government of the state of Washington offer programs to serve the needs of a growing American Indian elder and disabled population through the services of individuals caring for family members and also individuals employed to provide care. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,601 Evidence: low

Stalling life expectancy and increased mortality in working ages deserve urgent attention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. The Lancet Public Health 2019-11-01

The effect of austerity and associated budgets are strong contenders,3Ruckert A Labonté R Health inequities in the age of austerity: the need for social protection policies. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

These preliminary findings reveal white matter alterations associated with consensus MCI diagnosis and to socioeconomic differences in a clinical cohort of rural‐dwelling older adults. 5 key findings →

Participants: 69 Evidence: moderate

Neighborhood disadvantage is associated with altered cortical organization

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

Our findings suggest differences in local cortical organization by neighborhood disadvantage, which also mediated the relationship between ADI and cognitive performance, providing a possible network‐based mechanism, explaining risk for cognitive decline and dementia associated with disadvantaged neighborhoods. 3 key findings →

Participants: 526 Evidence: low

Neighborhood disadvantage is associated with altered cortical organization

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

Our findings suggest differences in local cortical organization by neighborhood disadvantage, which also mediated the relationship between ADI and cognitive performance, providing a possible network‐based mechanism, explaining risk for cognitive decline and dementia associated with disadvantaged neighborhoods. 3 key findings →

Participants: 526 Evidence: low

The study sample was NHATS respondents who needed assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and who did not live with a spouse (N = 512). 3 key findings →

Participants: 512 Evidence: low

Lecanemab is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody binding with high affinity to protofibrils of amyloid-beta (Aβ) protein. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Brain PET in the era of anti-amyloid-β antibody therapy for Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Japanese Journal of Radiology 2026-04-25

Here the current and emerging roles of brain positron emission tomography (PET) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the era of anti-amyloid-β antibody therapy, with a focus on clinical applications, methodological considerations, and future perspectives were reviewed. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

A doença de Alzheimer (DA) é uma enfermidade neurodegenerativa progressiva cuja fisiopatologia envolve, entre outros mecanismos, o acúmulo cerebral de β-amiloide, associado a alterações da proteína tau, sua hiperfosforilação e formação de emaranhados neurofibrilares, contribuindo para a disfunção sináptica e a perda neuronal. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Among 1,706 participants (mean age 56 years, 62% female, 28% Black), midlife NAFLD vs no NAFLD was associated with greater late-life WMH volume (difference per SD 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.31) and faster late-life WMH increase over 6 years (difference in annual change, SD 0.28, 95% CI 0.05-0.51), suggesting accumulating vascular pathology. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,706 Evidence: low

In the whole sample, both PRSs were associated with the strength of correlation between GMV and different serotonin receptors and fluorodopa uptake. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Research revealed a significant locus of susceptibility for LOAD on the Bridging Integrator 1 (BIN1) that is situated on chromosome 2q14.3 and is identified at the time of the most significant susceptibility gene of LOAD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 110 Evidence: low

Within the limitations of measuring in vitro equilibrium binding activity of in‐house recombinant antibodies to aqueously extracted Aβ from human postmortem brain tissue, we could not discern a population of Aβ aggregates ( e.g . protofibrils) accessible to one antibody but not the other two. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and dementia frequently co-occur, yet the biological mechanisms underlying this comorbidity remain incompletely understood. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody lecanemab received the US accelerated approval for mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of Alzheimer disease in January 2023, which was converted into traditional approval in June 2023. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our results show that lecanemab exhibits high binding affinity to amyloid-β fibril structures that have a flexible N-terminus in common, as is the case for type I, type II and murine type III amyloid-β fibril polymorphs, which resemble or are identical to human structures observed in sporadic and familial cases of Alzheimer's disease, including a case with the Arctic (E22G) mutation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Lecanemab reduced clinical decline by roughly 27% over placebo, with ARIA-E in 12.6% of treated patients;donanemab slowed decline by about 35%, with ARIA-E near 24%. 4 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

↑ 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