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.

It is uncertain whether typical variants causing monogenic stroke are associated with cerebrovascular disease in the general population and why the phenotype of these variants varies so widely. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 454 Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal tau positron emission tomography (PET) is a relevant outcome in clinical trials evaluating disease-modifying therapies in Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 215 Evidence: moderate

Much of late life cognitive decline is not due to common neurodegenerative pathologies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2013-07-10

The pathologic indices of Alzheimer disease, cerebrovascular disease, and Lewy body disease accumulate in the brains of older persons with and without dementia, but the extent to which they account for late life cognitive decline remains unknown. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 856 Evidence: moderate

Both early life and adult socioeconomic status (SES) predict late-life level of memory; however, evidence is mixed on the relationship between SES and rate of memory decline. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 10,781 Evidence: moderate

One hundred eighty-seven participants with brain autopsy (NPDx1: AD n = 85; other n = 102; mean age: 74.3 years, 38.5% female; interval blood collection-death [mean ± SD]: 2.8 ± 1.6 years) and 67 NC without brain autopsy (mean age: 66.5 years, 71.6% female) were included. pTau217, but not GFAP, levels increased stepwise with increasing Thal phases (β = 0.61; 95% CI [0.24-0.97] to β = 0.91 [0.55-1.27]) and Braak stages (β = 0.59; [0.16-1.01] to β = 0.74 [0.33-1.15]). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 85 Evidence: moderate

Dissecting the genetic and proteomic risk factors for delirium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Nature Aging 2025-11-24

Delirium is an acute change in cognition, common in hospitalized older adults, and associated with high healthcare and human cost; however, delirium's genetic and proteomic background remains poorly understood. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,059,130 Evidence: high

Long-Term Intake of Red Meat in Relation to Dementia Risk and Cognitive Function in US Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Neurology 2025-01-15

= 0.04). Replacing 1 serving per day of nuts and legumes for processed red meat was associated with a 19% lower risk of dementia (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.86), 1.37 fewer years of cognitive aging (95% CI -2.49 to -0.25), and a 21% lower risk of SCD (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.92). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

From October 2018 to March 2020, 58 participants were recruited (29 per group, 95% [86%-99%]). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 58 Evidence: high

Antidepressant use and cognitive decline in patients with dementia: a national cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. BMC Medicine 2025-02-24

We included 18740 patients (10 205 women [54.5%]; mean [SD] age, 78.2[7.4] years), of which 4271 (22.8%) received at least one prescription for an antidepressant. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 18,740 Evidence: moderate

Despite remarkable progress in the biomarker field in recent years, local validation of plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and dementia is still lacking in Latin America. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 49 Evidence: moderate

Higher adherence to the MedDiet was associated with greater gut microbial diversity (p < 0.05) and distinct microbial composition (PERMANOVA, p = 0.001). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 746 Evidence: moderate

The overall adherence rate to MI was 84.7%. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease: the IWG-2 criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. The Lancet Neurology 2014-05-18

This Position Paper evaluates the strengths and limitations of the International Working Group research diagnostic criteria and proposes advances to improve the diagnostic framework for Alzheimer's disease.

Evidence: low

The authors sought to identify new susceptibility loci for Alzheimer's disease through a staged association study and by testing suggestive loci reported by the Alzheimer's Disease Genetic Consortium in a companion paper. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The maximal tolerated dose of PQ912 has been identified and the results support future studies at still lower doses reaching > 50% target occupancy, a longer up-titration phase to potentially induce adaptation and longer treatment periods to confirm the early signals of efficacy as seen in this study. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

This study underscores the substantial prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among informal carers of individuals with dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 11,134 Evidence: moderate

This pilot randomized clinical trial demonstrated the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of LMH-4-DCP in reducing caregiver grief, with improvements in caregiver-care recipient relationship quality. 5 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 68 Evidence: preliminary

This study found that a high-intensity multidomain lifestyle intervention did not affect brain biomarker trajectories and was not associated with Aβ pathology, but older adults with specific at-risk brain characteristics, including lower baseline HC volume, showed a greater cognitive benefit of the structured intervention. 4 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 983 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