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.

Proteomic biomarkers of cognitive function, APOE ε4 status, and dementia in Generation Scotland

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-01-29

Untargeted mass spectrometry remains underutilised for blood-based biomarker discovery in dementia research from large cohorts, where affinity-based approaches dominate. 3 key findings →

Participants: 14,258 Evidence: low

Genetic susceptibility to Lewy body disease and the distribution of Lewy pathology

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-10-24

Across all cases, the SNCA association was indexed by a 5′ signal previously associated with dementia with Lewy bodies and rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder, rather than the canonical 3′ Parkinson’s disease variant. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,362 Evidence: high

Mapping polygenic risk scores to brain cells: insights for neurodegenerative diseases

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-10-11

Neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs) are driven by multiple related yet distinct pathological processes that evolve over decades, resulting in substantial clinical and neuropathological heterogeneity. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

A family-aware All of Us benchmark for polygenic prediction and genomic machine learning

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-10-26

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have improved substantially in predictive performance, yet results remain difficult to compare across studies that differ in cohorts, phenotype definitions, and evaluation procedures. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Regional similarity to male-typical brain architecture links childhood ADHD to neurophysiological aging in later adulthood

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.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

Identifying early life biomarkers of suboptimal aging trajectories could help design interventions to delay or even prevent the onset of pathological conditions in older adulthood. 1 key finding →

Participants: 522 Evidence: low

Large-Scale Genome-wide association study identified Shared Genetic Risk SNPs Correlates in Epilepsy and Alzheimer's Disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-23

Inverse-variance weighted MR indicated that genetically predicted focal epilepsy with hippocampal sclerosis was associated with increased odds of AD (OR=3.99, 95% CI 1.17–13.61; P=0.027). 5 key findings →

Participants: 803 Evidence: low

Chronic pain and cognitive impairment are rising ageing-related burdens. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 387,649 Evidence: moderate

Orthogonal Contributions of Genetic, Clinical, and Social Determinants of Health Risk Burdens on Alzheimer’s Disease Pathophysiology

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-07-15

Genetic risks were primarily associated with Aβ and tau pathology, clinical risks with neurodegeneration, and SDoH risks with cognition, suggesting that risk factors exert differential effects on AD pathophysiology. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,276 Evidence: moderate

TrustPGS: When can a polygenic score be trusted? A per-individual reliability framework across ancestries

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. bioRxiv 2026-07-07

Polygenic scores summarise genetic predisposition to a trait, but a population-level accuracy figure cannot tell a clinician whether a given prediction is reliable for the person in front of them. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Sequence-based variant-effect predictions reveal trait-specific regulatory-layer profiles of complex-trait heritability

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-10-19

Partitioned-heritability studies have shown which tissues carry the heritability of complex traits, but whether the regulatory layer whose annotations are most informative for heritability within a tissue differs between traits has not been tested, because measured annotations for different layers come from different sets of biosamples. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A Multiethnic Analysis of DNA Methylation Reveals Links Between Alzheimer’s Disease and Metabolic Comorbidities

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-10-07

The two sites associated with interactions between AD and a metabolic condition could explain the influence that those conditions have on the risk for AD and are prime candidates for future study. 3 key findings →

Participants: 551 Evidence: moderate

In brain, inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian–Laird) across six independent postmortem adult-brain GEO cohorts (GSE33000, GSE132903, GSE173955, GSE159699, GSE5281, GSE48350) yielded 458 analyzable panel genes, 167 at Benjamini–Hochberg FDR < 0.05, and 141 high-confidence genes (FDR < 0.05, measured in at least three cohorts, direction-concordant in at least 70% of cohorts, and nominally significant in at least two cohorts). 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 329 Evidence: high

Panel-Gene Transcriptomic Associations and Published-Variant Architecture in Parkinson Disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-22

Parkinson disease (PD) was examined in four primary adult-brain GEO cohorts (GSE49036, GSE20141, GSE8397, GSE7621) using a frozen 468-gene redox, metal, xenobiotic, and barrier panel. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Neuroticism, a personality trait characterized by the predisposition to experience intense and frequent negative emotions, has been associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,277 Evidence: low

Selective vulnerability: validation of atypical neurodegenerative disease variants in histopathological reference cohorts

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-10-16

Conventional, cohort-based staging exhibited profound topographical inversion, yielding negative correlations for TDP-43 ( ρ = -0.9113, p < 0.001) and α-synuclein ( ρ = -0.8660, p = 0.003) sub-cohorts. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The phenotypic measures “Slope” and “dMMSE/dt” consistently showed strong performance across a range of data distributions, while “Time-to-MMSE10” was particularly effective in cohorts with a higher proportion of individuals experiencing severe cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate

MTHFR C677T homozygosity was independently associated with vascular dementia (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.1–8.9; p=0.027) and showed clustering with cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

8 of the 346 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 8. The same 8 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