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.

Impact of Project ECHO Models of Medical Tele-Education: a Systematic Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Journal of general internal medicine 2019-09-04

The number of studies examining ECHO and ECHO-like models of medical tele-education has been modest compared with the scope and scale of implementation throughout the USA and internationally. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The TICS has high diagnostic validity for identification of dementia among ethnically diverse older adults, especially when supported by the DQ and prior visit data. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 256 Evidence: moderate

In this large multicentre and long-term population-based study, some well-known risk factors for dementia, of vascular and Alzheimer's type, are confirmed but not others. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,075 Evidence: moderate

Age, sex, functional limitation, and malnutrition seem to be the strongest predictors of death for patients with Alzheimer's disease in nursing homes. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,264 Evidence: moderate

This systematic review commissioned by the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), considers how the evidence base for noise effects on health has changed following the recent reviews undertaken for the WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Cognitive resilience to apolipoprotein E ε4: contributing factors in black and white older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2015-03-01

Although APOE ε4 carriers are at high risk for cognitive decline, our findings suggest possible intervention targets, including the enhancement of cognitive reserve and improvement of other psychosocial and health factors, to promote cognitive resilience among black and white APOE ε4 carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 2,487 Evidence: moderate

Compared with men, women had decreased risk of any LEA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.34 [95% CI, 0.31-0.37]). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

In this diverse community-based cohort, cross-sectional data revealed significant race/ethnic disparities in the prevalence of MCI and dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 989 Evidence: moderate

From 2011 to 2017, of the 1193 major surgeries (from 992 community-living participants), the mean (SD) age was 79.2 (7.1) years; 665 were women (55.7%), and 30 were Hispanic (2.5%), 198 non-Hispanic Black (16.6%), and 915 non-Hispanic White (76.7%). 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,590 Evidence: moderate

However, in many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) there is a lack of evaluation and the cross-cultural validity of SRH remains largely untested. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 16,940 Evidence: moderate

The results underscore the impact of education on brain structure and function in LA, highlighting the importance of incorporating educational factors into diagnosing, care, and prevention, and emphasizing the need for global diversity in research. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,412 Evidence: low

Exome sequencing reveals VCP mutations as a cause of familial ALS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neuron 2010-12-01

Using exome sequencing, we identified a p.R191Q amino acid change in the valosin-containing protein (VCP) gene in an Italian family with autosomal dominantly inherited amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

Tau and Aβ imaging, CSF measures, and cognition in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Science translational medicine 2016-05-01

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by two molecular pathologies: cerebral β-amyloidosis in the form of β-amyloid (Aβ) plaques and tauopathy in the form of neurofibrillary tangles, neuritic plaques, and neuropil threads. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Although beta-amyloid (Abeta) plaques are a primary diagnostic criterion for Alzheimer's disease, this pathology is commonly observed in the brains of non-demented older individuals. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

Preclinical Alzheimer's disease and its outcome: a longitudinal cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2013-09-04

Compared with individuals classed as normal, participants with preclinical Alzheimer's disease had an increased risk of death after adjusting for covariates (hazard ratio 6·2, 95% CI 1·1-35·0; p=0·040). 2 key findings →

Participants: 311 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 27,380 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