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

Showing 126–150 of 932 studies published 2026 · free to read (page 6 of 38) · 30,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

Low baseline Aβ42/Aβ40 was significantly associated with increased amyloid accumulation (β = 0.257, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.177-0.336, P < 0.001), and with higher risk of conversion to Aβ-PET positivity (Hazard ratio (HR) = 2.84, 95% CI 1.14-7.04, P = 0.025) and to MCI due to AD (HR = 3.25, 95% CI 1.17-9.01, P = 0.024). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 200 Evidence: moderate

Antidiabetic medications and risk of cognitive disorders in type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. PLoS ONE 2026-08-24

Among 1,528,885 adults with type 2 diabetes (mean age, 58 years; 49.2% women), GLP-1 receptor agonists plus metformin were associated with lower incidence of vascular dementia (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.37-0.57), mild cognitive disorder (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95), and Alzheimer disease (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.31-0.70). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,528,885 Evidence: moderate

The viral-inflammatory hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease offers a new paradigm, yet interventions like antivirals and vaccination present a paradox that challenge therapeutic development. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

LIGHT will provide insight into the implementation and (cost-)effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention for indicated prevention in a memory clinic setting. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Delirium: more than a marker of baseline vulnerability

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2026-05-01

Across several cohorts, delirium is emerging as an important prognostic signal, independent of chronic markers of baseline morbidity, that identifies patients at markedly increased risk of death or future dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,556 Evidence: moderate

Undiagnosed dementia is common and associated with increased mortality, identifying a vulnerable population missed by current diagnostic pathways. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 13,142 Evidence: moderate

Plasma P-tau217 for detecting amyloid clearance after donanemab in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer's & Dementia 2026-08-07

Despite reductions in plasma p-tau217 with donanemab treatment, this biomarker cannot currently be used to accurately detect TRAC by PET (< 24.1 CL) in individuals with early symptomatic AD. 1 key finding →

Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 830 Evidence: null result

Guidelines recommend limiting antipsychotic treatment to short-term use ( Methods Using UK primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, linked with hospital and mortality data from Jan 1, 1998, to March 31, 2021, we emulated two sets of target trials, one after 12 weeks of antipsychotic treatment and another after 24 weeks of antipsychotic treatment, to compare continuing treatment versus tapering treatment and continuing treatment versus abrupt discontinuation of treatment. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 24,822 Evidence: moderate

Clinicopathologic Evaluation of Amyloid Clearance in Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. JAMA 2026-07-12

The long-term efficacy of amyloid-targeting therapies hinges on their ability to slow downstream neuropathologic change, but little is known about the influence of amyloid clearance on tau pathology and neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high

For VA and Medicare cohorts, dementia diagnosis was absent in 88.7% and 80.5%, respectively, of follow-up encounters in the other system. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 68,092 Evidence: moderate

This cross-sectional study evaluates the performance of the US Food and Drug Administration–cleared phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217) to β-amyloid 42 ratio cut points used to detect amyloid pathology associated with Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Longitudinal Evaluation of 18 F-MK-6240 Along the Alzheimer Disease Continuum

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2026-04-02

Baseline 18F-MK-6240 PET showed a minimal signal in CU participants, localized signal to the medial temporal lobe in participants with MCI, and a signal spanning the inferolateral temporal lobe and extending posteriorly along the ventral cortex in participants with AD. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate

An Ensemble Learning Artificial Intelligence Model for Alzheimer's Disease Detection Using OCT

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Ophthalmology Science 2026-01-10

For detecting AD-dementia, the ensemble model achieved the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.943 (95% confidence interval, 0.906-0.980), 0.786 (95% confidence interval, 0.673-0.899), and 0.795 (95% confidence interval, 0.716-0.874) in the internal validation, External-1, and External-2, respectively. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate

Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS), commonly concomitant with Alzheimer's disease (AD), substantially impair the quality of life and accelerate disease progression, yet reliable biomarkers for early identification of individuals at high NPS risk remain elusive. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 509 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive Impairment, Dementia and Depression in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2026-02-03

This narrative review integrates longitudinal cohort studies, neuroimaging and biomarker research, and major clinical trials to examine how depression and cognitive decline interact across the dementia continuum. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Both groups exhibited significant, transient microbiome remodeling at Year 1 (the period of most active weight loss). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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    Where this research is being discussed: events