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.

Fine-mapping reveals four TMEM106B haplotypes associated with neurodegenerative risk and preserved cognition at extreme age

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-17

Genetic variation at the TMEM106B locus has been associated with Alzheimers disease (AD) and related neurodegenerative phenotypes, yet its haplotypic architecture remains incompletely resolved. 2 key findings →

Participants: 493 Evidence: low

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class II variation is implicated in Alzheimers disease (AD) and longevity, but its mechanisms within the major histocompatibility complex remain unclear. 2 key findings →

Participants: 6,053 Evidence: moderate

Absorption and Co-expression Modules Show Where Polygenic and Proteomic Risk Scores Diverge in Neurodegenerative Diseases

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-27

Polygenic and proteomic risk scores are both proposed for pre-symptomatic stratification, yet the extent to which they provide overlapping or complementary information has not been measured across neurodegenerative disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the common signature of dysregulated brain glucose metabolism in late-onset age-associated neurodegenerative diseases (A2NDs), including Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,298 Evidence: high

Sex differences in Alzheimers disease (AD) genetic effects and regulatory contexts remain incompletely resolved. 3 key findings →

Participants: 449,335 Evidence: low

ResultsThe CNR2 missense variant rs4649124 was associated with increased vascular dementia risk (BH-adjusted P = 0.049) after correction at the 5% false discovery rate (FDR) threshold, with additional associations at the 10% FDR threshold for all-cause dementia risk (BH-adjusted P = 0.051) and lower circulating APP (BH-adjusted P = 0.088) and BDNF (BH-adjusted P = 0.083) levels. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

BackgroundAnti-amyloid-{beta} (A{beta}) monoclonal antibodies are disease-modifying treatments for early Alzheimers disease but are associated with amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Clonal Haematopoiesis Tracks Alzheimer's-like Cortical Atrophy in Community-Dwelling Older Adults

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-12

BackgroundClonal haematopoiesis (CH), the age-related expansion of mutated blood stem cells, is detectable in around 10% of people in their seventies, rises steeply with age, and is associated with several diseases. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,091 Evidence: moderate

Proteomic markers linking anxiety phenotypes to Alzheimers disease risk: a multi-analyte proteomic analysis

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-17

ImportanceAnxiety phenotypes - rumination, global anxiety, and worry (RAW) - are increasingly associated with Alzheimers disease and related dementias (ADRD) risk, yet how anxiety phenotypes relate to coordinated, multi-system biology in the at-risk older adults is unknown. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimers disease and related dementias (ADRD)1 and Parkinsons disease and related disorders (PDRD)2 have substantial genetic contributions, yet the role of rare damaging coding variants remains incompletely characterized at population scale3-6. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Genetically Predicted Blood DNA Methylation Reveals Putative Regulatory Signals Associated with ALS Risk

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-20

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal neurodegenerative disorder whose genetic architecture and underlying molecular mechanisms remain incompletely understood, particularly in sporadic disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Genetic Associations with Alzheimer's, Lewy Body and Vascular Neuropathology Reveal Shared and Distinct Biological Pathways

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-22

INTRODUCTIONAlzheimers, Lewy body and vascular neuropathology underpin the most common forms of dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Integrated genomic meta-analysis identifies cell-type-specific signatures and targets in early Alzheimer's disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-23

Cellular mechanisms in early Alzheimers disease (AD) remain poorly understood despite generation of extensive observational multiomic data. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Distinct lipid mediator profiles in brain and liver tissues in Alzheimer's disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-23

INTRODUCTIONInflammation plays a central role in Alzheimers Disease (AD), with oxylipins, endocannabinoids, and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) acting as potent modulators. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

We investigated associations of neighborhood disadvantage with Alzheimer's Disease (AD)-related outcomes by biological and social factors in at-risk older adults. 1,880 U.S. POINTER participants with Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and cognition (PACC) were included. 868 had amyloid, tau PET, white matter hyperintensities (WMH), and/or gray matter volumes. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Gantenerumab reduces brain amyloid-β proteoforms: Biochemical evaluation in dominantly inherited Alzheimer disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-09-29

Symptomatic DIAD participants who had been treated for ∼ 4 years with anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies (gantenerumab, n=4 or solanezumab, n=4) were compared with untreated, symptomatic DIAD mutation carriers (n=40) and with age-relevant non-DIAD controls with modest or no plaque pathology (n=18). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 1,344 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