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.

Chronic exposure to increased glucocorticoid concentrations appears to lower the threshold for hippocampal neuronal degeneration in the old rat. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a common psychiatric disorder for which available medications are often not effective. 4 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Effects of ApoE4 and maternal history of dementia on hippocampal atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2010-09-15

We applied an automated hippocampal segmentation technique based on adaptive boosting (AdaBoost) to the 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) baseline and 1-year follow-up data of 243 subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 96 with Alzheimer's disease (AD), and 145 normal controls (NC) scanned as part of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 3 key findings →

Participants: 243 Evidence: low

This study demonstrates permanent cognitive impairment in several domains in both septic and non-septic ICU survivors and unspecific brain dysfunction. 3 key findings →

Participants: 25 Evidence: low

Functional implications of hippocampal volume and diffusivity in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. NeuroImage 2005-08-03

Hippocampal atrophy has been related to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early Alzheimer disease (AD), but the diagnostic significance of cross-sectionally determined hippocampal volumes is still ambiguous. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Hippocampal sclerosis dementia differs from hippocampal sclerosis in frontal lobe degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2006-12-30

Hippocampal sclerosis (HS) is characterized by selective neuronal loss and gliosis in CA1 and the subiculum and has been associated with several disorders, including Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin immunoreactive inclusions (FTLD-U), vascular dementia and some tauopathies. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We have previously reported smaller hippocampal volume and deficits in short-term memory in patients with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) relative to comparison subjects. 2 key findings →

Participants: 17 Evidence: low

Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impairments in reciprocal social interaction, deficits in verbal and nonverbal communication, and a restricted repertoire of activities or interests. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

We used magnetic resonance imaging to examine the morphologic characteristics of the amygdala/hippocampus, prefrontal cortex, and caudate nucleus in 29 healthy volunteers matched for age, gender, and head of household socioeconomic status and 44 patients with chronic schizophrenia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 44 Evidence: low

Older depressed subjects have persisting cognitive impairments associated with hippocampal volume reduction, but the results do not support cortisol-mediated hippocampal neurotoxicity as the major etiological mechanism. 4 key findings →

Participants: 49 Evidence: low

In a study of 52 individuals belonging to 35 species or subspecies of passerine birds it was shown that the volume of the hippocampal complex relative to brain and body size is significantly larger in species that store food than in species that do not. 2 key findings →

Participants: 52 Evidence: low

Many survivors of breast cancer show significant cognitive impairments, including memory deficits. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Maternal separation and poor maternal care in animals have been shown to have important effects on the developing hippocampus and amygdala. 5 key findings →

Participants: 17 Evidence: low

In major depression, decreased hippocampal volume has been attributed to hypercortisolemia, a frequent sign of the disorder, because in animals an excess of corticosteroids has led to dendritic atrophy, astrogliosis and loss of neurons in this brain region. 1 key finding →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 492 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