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.

Median follow-up increased from 2.0 years in the double-blind trial to 3.9 years overall. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,485 Evidence: high

The aim of the reported trial was to investigate the safety and efficacy of memantine in mild to moderate vascular dementia (VaD). 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 579 Evidence: high

Hypertension and cerebral white matter lesions in a prospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2002-04-01

White matter lesions are frequently found on cerebral MRI scans of elderly people and are thought to be important in the pathogenesis of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,077 Evidence: low

Discrimination between Alzheimer dementia and controls by automated analysis of multicenter FDG PET

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. NeuroImage 2002-09-01

A new diagnostic indicator of FDG PET scan abnormality, based on age-adjusted t statistics and an automated voxel-based procedure, is presented and validated in a large data set comprising 110 normal controls and 395 patients with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) that were studied in eight participating centers. 5 key findings →

Participants: 395 Evidence: low

Antemortem MRI findings correlate with hippocampal neuropathology in typical aging and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2002-03-01

Individuals with an isolated pathologic diagnosis of AD, hippocampal sclerosis, frontotemporal degeneration, and neurofibrillary tangle--only degeneration usually had substantial hippocampal atrophy, while those with changes of typical aging did not. 2 key findings →

Participants: 67 Evidence: low

Central auditory speech-processing deficits may be an early manifestation of probable Alzheimer's disease and may precede the onset of dementia diagnosis by many years. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This study performed an anatomical parcellation of the MNI spatially normalized single-subject high-resolution T1 volume by delineating main sulci as landmarks to define 45 anatomical volumes of interest (AVOI) in each hemisphere. 4 key findings →

Visual hallucinations in Lewy body disease relate to Lewy bodies in the temporal lobe

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2002-02-01

Consensus opinion characterizes dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) as a progressive dementing illness, with significant fluctuations in cognition, visual hallucinations and/or parkinsonism. 4 key findings →

Participants: 29 Evidence: low

Abnormality of gait as a predictor of non-Alzheimer's dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2002-11-01

The presence of neurologic gait abnormalities in elderly persons without dementia at base line is a significant predictor of the risk of development of dementia, especially non-Alzheimer's dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 422 Evidence: low

Snoezelen for dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2002-01-01

Practitioners are keen to use snoezelen in dementia care, and some encouraging results have been documented in the area of promoting adaptive behaviours (e.g. The list of trials was compared with those identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The idea of reserve against brain damage stems from the repeated observation that there does not appear to be a direct relationship between the degree of brain pathology or brain damage and the clinical manifestation of that damage.

Delirium is common and often goes undetected in older patients admitted to medical services. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,925 Evidence: high

Age at onset in two common neurodegenerative diseases is genetically controlled

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. American journal of human genetics 2002-03-01

To identify genes influencing age at onset (AAO) in two common neurodegenerative diseases, a genomic screen was performed for AAO in families with Alzheimer disease (AD; n=449) and Parkinson disease (PD; n=174). 2 key findings →

Participants: 449 Evidence: low

The identification of mutations in the Tau gene in frontotemporal dementia and parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 (FTDP-17) has made it possible to express human tau protein with pathogenic mutations in transgenic animals. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Polycystic lipomembranous osteodysplasia with sclerosing leukoencephalopathy (PLOSL), also known as "Nasu-Hakola disease," is a globally distributed recessively inherited disease leading to death during the 5th decade of life and is characterized by early-onset progressive dementia and bone cysts. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Change in eating behaviour was significantly more common in both of the frontotemporal dementia groups than in Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Two apolipoprotein E (apoE) receptors, the very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) receptor and apoE receptor 2 (apoER2), are also receptors for Reelin, a signaling protein that regulates neuronal migration during brain development. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

HIV-associated cognitive impairment before and after the advent of combination therapy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of neurovirology 2002-04-01

The objective of this study was to describe the occurrence of HIV dementia and neuropsychological testing abnormalities in a new cohort of HIV-seropositive individuals at high risk for HIV dementia and to compare these results to a cohort before the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The short and long term effects of CEIs were evaluated in 135 patients with probable Alzheimer's disease relative to 135 patients who were never exposed to CEIs matched by age, education, duration of the symptoms, and cognitive status. 4 key findings →

Participants: 135 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