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.

In 2026, the beginning of the 15th Five-Year Plan, the Central No. 1 Document emphasized the cultivation and expansion of county-level wealth-creating industries as the core approach to ensuring stable income growth for farmers. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Compared to direct estimation, the HB SAE model reduced the number of sub-districts with Relative Standard Errors (RSE) above 25% from 55 to 44, achieving lower Mean Squared Error (MSE) values and more stable estimates. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Here, new phenoxide derivatives of diisopropyl flourophosphate for reaction with Lewis basic sites on acetyl cholinesterase (AChE) were designed. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Ukiyo Project is a collaborative initiative between the Faculty of Fine Arts at the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM) and the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Guanajuato (Mexico), aimed at promoting emotional well-being and mental health in the university environment through art. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Down syndrome (DS), caused by trisomy of chromosome 21, exhibits significant phenotypic variability, including intellectual disability, early-onset Alzheimer disease (AD), congenital heart defects (CHDs), haematological malignancies, and immune dysregulation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease is one of the causes of dementia that could make the patient lose their memories until they unable to do normal activities. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

A doença de Alzheimer (DA) configura-se como a principal causa de demência em idosos, se tornando um dos maiores desafios da medicina moderna devido à sua alta prevalência e o impacto social associado. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study examined how the COVID-19 pandemic altered the sociologic, individual, and biologic personhood of residents living with dementia in nursing homes, guided by Buron’s (2008) Personhood Model for Dementia Care (PMDC). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The objective of a new report, ‘European Dementia Monitor 2017: comparing and benchmarking national dementia strategies and policies’, is to provide a benchmark of national dementia policies in order to compare the responses of European countries to the dementia challenge in different domains. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Glial activation and neuroinflammation play significant roles in apoptosis as well as in the development of cognitive and memory deficits. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

OASIS-3: Longitudinal Neuroimaging, Clinical, and Cognitive Dataset for Normal Aging and Alzheimer Disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2019-12-15

OASIS-3 is a compilation of MRI and PET imaging and related clinical data for 1098 participants who were collected across several ongoing studies in the Washington University Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center over the course of 15 years. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,098 Evidence: moderate

A high incidence of fractures, particularly of the hip, represents an important problem in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD), who are prone to falls and have osteoporosis. 2 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Further research with DEMQOL is needed to confirm these findings in an independent sample, evaluate responsiveness, investigate the feasibility of use in specific subgroups and in economic evaluation, and develop population norms. 2 key findings →

Participants: 130 Evidence: low

Future studies are encouraged to adopt personalized internet-based supportive interventions to improve the health of family caregivers and their care recipients. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The results presented are sufficiently encouraging to recommend that the DEMQOL instruments be used alongside a generic measure such as the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) in future studies of interventions in dementia as there was evidence that they can be more sensitive for patients at the milder end of disease and some limited evidence that the person with dementia measure may be able to reflect deterioration. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 644 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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