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.

In vivo staging of regional amyloid deposition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Neurology 2017-10-18

The highly consistent regional hierarchy of PET-evidenced amyloid deposition across participants resembles neuropathologic observations and suggests a predictable regional sequence that may be used to stage an individual's progress of amyloid pathology in vivo. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 667 Evidence: moderate

Sex and age differences in atrophic rates: an ADNI study with n=1368 MRI scans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2010-08-01

We set out to determine factors that influence the rate of brain atrophy in 1-year longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 363 Evidence: moderate

Predicting Alzheimer's disease progression using deep recurrent neural networks

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. NeuroImage 2020-08-04

Early identification of individuals at risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia is important for developing disease-modifying therapies. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,677 Evidence: moderate

The application of support vector machine classification (SVM) to combined information from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and [F18]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) has been shown to improve detection and differentiation of Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 21 Evidence: high

The most novel characteristics of our machine learning model compared to previous ones are the following: 1) our deep learning model is multi-tasking, in the sense that it jointly learns to simultaneously predict both MCI to AD conversion as well as AD vs. healthy controls classification, which facilitates relevant feature extraction for AD prognostication; 2) the neural network classifier employs fewer parameters than other deep learning architectures which significantly limits data-overfitting (we use ∼550,000 network parameters, which is orders of magnitude lower than other network designs); 3) both structural MRI images and their warp field characteristics, which quantify local volumetric changes in relation to the MRI template, were used as separate input streams to extract as much information as possible from the MRI data. 1 key finding →

Participants: 785 Evidence: low

As a result, our combined method achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AU-ROC) curve of 98.33, 93.59, 96.83, 94.64, 96.43, and 95.24% for AD vs. MCIs subjects which are high relative to single modality results and other state-of-the-art approaches. 2 key findings →

Participants: 158 Evidence: low

Greater intracranial volume (ICV) has been associated with less severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) symptoms at a given level of cerebral pathology. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 204 Evidence: moderate

Hippocampal volumetry derived from structural MRI is increasingly used to delineate regions of interest for functional measurements, assess efficacy in therapeutic trials of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and has been endorsed by the new AD diagnostic guidelines as a radiological marker of disease progression. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Neuroimaging predictors of brain amyloidosis in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2013-08-01

As one of the first attempts to use an imaging technique that does not require amyloid-specific radioligands for identification of individuals with brain amyloidosis, our findings could lead to development of multidisciplinary/multimodality brain amyloidosis biomarkers that are reliable, minimally invasive, and widely available. 3 key findings →

Participants: 62 Evidence: moderate

Medial temporal lobe subregional morphometry using high resolution MRI in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2016-09-30

Autopsy studies of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have found that neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) pathology of the medial temporal lobe (MTL) demonstrates selective topography with relatively stereotyped subregional involvement at early disease stages, prompting interest in more granular measurement of these structures with in vivo magnetic resonance imaging. 4 key findings →

Participants: 86 Evidence: moderate

The final algorithm demonstrated an AUROC of 0.88, sensitivity of 77.7%, and a specificity of 79.9% on excluded test data. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Determination of sensitive and specific markers of very early AD progression is intended to aid researchers and clinicians to develop new treatments and monitor their effectiveness, as well as to lessen the time and cost of clinical trials. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Arterial spin labeled MRI in prodromal Alzheimer's disease: A multi-site study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. NeuroImage. Clinical 2013-04-30

We examined differences in cerebral blood flow (CBF) measured by Arterial Spin Labeled perfusion MRI (ASL MRI) across the continuum from cognitively normal (CN) older adults to mild Alzheimer's Disease (AD) using data from the multi-site Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 4 key findings →

Participants: 47 Evidence: low

Rey's Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) is a powerful neuropsychological tool for testing episodic memory, which is widely used for the cognitive assessment in dementia and pre-dementia conditions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Selecting a set of relevant markers to predict conversion from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD) has become a challenging task given the wealth of regional pathologic information that can be extracted from multimodal imaging data. 4 key findings →

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. 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