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 primary outcome of this clinical trial is the change in the Vascular Dementia Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale from baseline to 12 months. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,052 Evidence: high

Research on cognitive impairment (CI) has increasingly focused on the central nervous system, identifying numerous neuronal targets and circuits of relevance for CI pathogenesis and treatment. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: low

Despite the significant impact of postoperative delirium on surgical outcomes and the long-term prognosis of older patients, its neural basis has not yet been clarified. 3 key findings →

Participants: 136 Evidence: low

Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis hyperresponsiveness and a less frequent suppression of the GH/IGF-1 axis in response to acute stress are possibly involved in delirium pathophysiology. 2 key findings →

Participants: 101 Evidence: low

Enlarged perivascular spaces are associated with age, lacunar stroke subtype and white matter lesions and should be considered as another magnetic resonance imaging marker of cerebral small vessel disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 298 Evidence: low

We investigated whether the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers beta-amyloid 1-42 (Abeta1-42), total tau (t-tau) protein and tau protein phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p-tau181) could discriminate Alzheimer's disease (AD) from vascular dementia (VD) patients. 4 key findings →

Participants: 35 Evidence: low

They also suggest that FW elevation occurs in the locus coeruleus to transentorhinal cortex tract, nucleus basalis of Meynert, and hippocampus in the transition from CN to EMCI, while other basal forebrain regions and the entorhinal cortex are not affected until a later stage of AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Increasing evidence suggests that vascular risk factors contribute to neurodegeneration, cognitive impairment and dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Abnormal regional cerebral blood flow in cognitively normal elderly subjects with hypertension

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Stroke 2008-01-03

Cognitively normal subjects with HTN (n=19) had decreased rCBF in the putamen, globus pallidus, bilaterally, and in the left hippocampus compared with normotensives (n=22). 1 key finding →

Participants: 19 Evidence: low

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infects the brains of a majority of patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and has been linked to the development of a progressive dementia termed "HIV-associated dementia." 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The results confirm that unilateral parkinsonism unresponsive to levodopa and limb ideomotor apraxia are the clinical hallmarks of corticobasal degeneration, and only a minority of patients with corticobasal degeneration present with dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

IL-6 levels were negatively associated with performance on the MMSE in this multiethnic cohort. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Inflammasomes in neuroinflammation and changes in brain function: a focused review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Frontiers in neuroscience 2014-10-07

Recent literature has pointed to the existence of inflammasome-mediated inflammatory pathways in central nervous system (CNS) disorders and associated changes in behavior. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 926 studies in this tag that have a study page, 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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