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.

A/T/N: An unbiased descriptive classification scheme for Alzheimer disease biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2016-07-01

Biomarkers have become an essential component of Alzheimer disease (AD) research and because of the pervasiveness of AD pathology in the elderly, the same biomarkers are used in cognitive aging research. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

ATN classification and clinical progression in subjective cognitive decline: The SCIENCe project

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2020-06-10

Among individuals presenting with SCD at a memory clinic, those with a biomarker profile A-T+N+, A+T-N-, A+T+N-, and A+T+N+ were at increased risk of dementia, and showed steeper cognitive decline compared to A-T-N- individuals. 4 key findings →

Participants: 385 Evidence: moderate

Previous studies have suggested that the APOE ɛ4 allele plays a role in the risk and age at onset of dementia in DS; however, data on in vivo biomarkers remain scarce. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Detection of Brain Tau Pathology in Down Syndrome Using Plasma Biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2022-08-01

Among 300 participants with DS and a control group of 37 non-DS siblings, mean (SD) age was 45.0 (10.1) years, and 167 (49.6%) were men. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 300 Evidence: low

Among cognitively normal participants with positive biomarkers, 34.4% developed cognitive impairment (Clinical Dementia Rating > 0) as compared to 8.4% of those with negative biomarkers. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 720 Evidence: moderate

Sleep duration is linked to amyloid-β clearance while physical activity is associated with brain volume maintenance. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,322 Evidence: high

Higher levels of P-tau181 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI: 1.17-1.51]), NfL (HR = 1.19 [95% CI: 1.03-1.36]), and GFAP (HR = 1.36 [95% CI: 1.22-1.52]), and a lower Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio (HR = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.68-0.95]) were associated with an increased risk of progressing to clinically-diagnosed DAT. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,007 Evidence: moderate

Our study indicates that changes in PVS-related MRI parameters occur in MCI and AD, possibly due to impairment of the glymphatic system. 3 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: low

The higher risk of AD among blacks may stem from lower level of cognitive test performance persisting throughout the observation period rather than faster rate of late-life cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Participants: 7,735 Evidence: high

Better sleep consolidation attenuates the effect of APOE genotype on incident AD and development of neurofibrillary tangle pathology. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 698 Evidence: moderate

Two multicentre genome-wide association (GWA) studies provided substantial evidence, implicating the complement receptor 1 gene (CR1) in Alzheimer disease (AD) genetic etiology. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,883 Evidence: moderate

Improved insight into these pathomechanisms may allow to shed light on the role of Aβ deposition as a primary versus a secondary event in the complex pathogenesis of AD. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

White matter lesions: Spatial heterogeneity, links to risk factors, cognition, genetics, and atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2018-08-03

These results support the hypothesis that the appearance of WMH follows age and disease-dependent regional distribution patterns, potentially influenced by differential underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, and possibly with a differential link to vascular and neurodegenerative changes. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,836 Evidence: moderate

Secondary analysis suggested that this effect may be driven primarily by individuals who are negative for the established AD genetic risk factor, apolipoprotein E (APOE) ɛ4. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 346 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