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.

The Monotherapy Switzerland/Thailand study (MOST) trial compared monotherapy with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir with continued therapy. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In vitro and animal studies have suggested that inoculation with herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) can lead to amyloid deposits, hyperphosphorylation of tau, and/or neuronal loss. 4 key findings →

Participants: 58 Evidence: low

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is driven by vascular Aβ (amyloid-beta) deposition, which can be detected as reduced Aβ species in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 31 Evidence: low

Diet can impact cognitive aging, but comprehensive data from human studies is lacking and the underlying biological mechanisms are still not fully understood. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,907 Evidence: low

Recent expansion of proteomic coverage opens unparalleled avenues to unveil new biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Neuroinflammation may be involved in the pathophysiology of Parkinson's disease (PD) and specifically in non-motor symptoms such as depression, fatigue and cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Participants: 87 Evidence: low

Predicting onset of Alzheimer disease symptoms with a plasma %p‐tau217 clock

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Two independently constructed %p‐tau217 plasma clocks had strong correlations with actual time measures and were consistent across the two cohorts. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 420 Evidence: moderate

With the advancement of anti-amyloid treatments for Alzheimer disease, accurate assays for amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology are essential. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 431 Evidence: moderate

Blood biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are promising for dementia prediction, but their association with progression across intermediate stages of cognitive decline in the general population remains unclear. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) signature of reduced amyloid beta 1-42 (Aβ 42 ), elevated total tau (t-tau), and phosphorylated tau181 (p-tau) is important for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

We established AD diagnostic models using plasma biomarkers for Chinese participants. 2 key findings →

Participants: 159 Evidence: low

Our results support the utility of CSF VEC as a marker of endothelial injury in AD and highlight the importance of endothelial injury as an early pathology that contributes to cognitive impairment in even the earliest preclinical stages. 3 key findings →

Participants: 700 Evidence: moderate

Comparing clinical stages, CSF PDGFRβ levels were increased at the MCI stage (Cohen's d = 0.55 [CI 95% 0.066, 1.0], P = 0.025) compared with NC. 3 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Our findings suggest that microglial and astrocyte reactivity, measured through fluid biomarkers, occur early and impact the amyloid cascade on the preclinical Alzheimer´s continuum. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The sensitivity of CSF-beta-amyloid(1-42) level as a diagnostic marker for AD is high. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cholinergic markers, neuropeptides, and amines and their metabolites were sampled from identical specimens across 10 neocortical regions in a large sample of Alzheimer's disease (AD) cases and controls. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Using a targeted proteomic screen, we identified novel candidate biomarkers that complement the best current CSF biomarkers for distinguishing very mildly/mildly demented from cognitively normal individuals. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 829 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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. Show only studies that are free to read

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