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.

These findings suggest that a hearing intervention might reduce cognitive change over 3 years in populations of older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline but not in populations at decreased risk for cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 858 Evidence: high

ACHIEVE-P sets the stage for the full-scale ACHIEVE trial (N = 850, recruitment beginning November 2017), the first randomized trial to determine efficacy of a best practices hearing (vs. successful aging) intervention on reducing cognitive decline in older adults with HL. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 850 Evidence: high

Midlife vascular risk factors are associated with increased risk of dementia in black and white ARIC Study participants. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 744 Evidence: moderate

This randomized trial gave hearing aids plus counseling, or only general health education, to 977 older adults with untreated hearing loss, then tracked cognition for three years. 4 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 977 Evidence: moderate

When completed in 2022, Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders study should provide definitive evidence of the effect of hearing treatment versus education control on cognitive decline in community-dwelling older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing impairment. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Blood-Based Biomarkers and Risk of Onset of Mild Cognitive Impairment Over the Short and Long Term

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2024-12-26

This study examined whether levels of blood biomarkers of amyloid (Aβ 42 /Aβ 40 ratio), tau (p-tau 181 ), neurodegeneration (NfL), and glial activation and neuroinflammation (glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], YKL40, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 [sTREM2]) collected when participants were cognitively normal are associated with the time to onset of MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 271 Evidence: moderate

The temporal evolutions and relative orderings of Alzheimer disease biomarkers, including CSF amyloid-β42 (Aβ42), Aβ40, total tau (Tau) and phosphorylated tau181 (pTau181), standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) from the molecular imaging of cerebral fibrillar amyloid-β with PET using the 11C-Pittsburgh Compound-B (PiB), MRI-based hippocampal volume and cortical thickness and cognition have been hypothesized but not yet fully tested with longitudinal data for all major biomarker modalities among cognitively normal individuals across the adult lifespan starting from 18 years. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,609 Evidence: moderate

This study aimed to examine whether baseline CSF measures of Alzheimer disease (AD)-related pathology are associated with the time to onset of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and whether these associations differ by age, sex, Apolipoprotein E ( ApoE4 ) status, and proximal (≤7 years) vs distal (>7 years) time to symptom onset. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 273 Evidence: moderate

Diabetes status, poor glycemic control, and longer diabetes duration were associated with worse cognitive outcomes over a median follow-up of 5 years. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,099 Evidence: low

From a longitudinal study of normal (Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR] = 0; n = 77) and mildly impaired (CDR = 0.5; n = 167) participants with 5 or more annual clinical assessments, baseline level of cognitive impairment in daily life was graded using CDR sum of boxes (CDR-SB) and level of cognitive performance impairment was graded using neuropsychological test scores. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 77 Evidence: moderate

High WMH was a predictor of progression from normal to MCI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-8.17; P= .01) but not conversion from MCI to all-cause dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 67 Evidence: moderate

Hypothetical Preclinical Alzheimer Disease Groups and Longitudinal Cognitive Change

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2016-06-01

These results suggest that, to optimize observing a treatment effect, clinical trials enrolling cognitively normal individuals should selectively recruit participants with abnormal levels of both amyloid and tau (ie, stage 2) because this group would be expected to show the greatest cognitive decline over time if untreated. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Early Abeta accumulation and progressive synaptic loss, gliosis, and tangle formation in AD brain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2004-03-01

These data support distinct processes in the initiation and progression of AD pathology within the temporal cortex: Deposition of Abeta reaches a "ceiling" early in the disease process, whereas NFT formation, synaptic loss, and gliosis continue throughout the course of the illness. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

An international group of clinical and basic scientists participated in the Frontotemporal Dementia and Pick's Disease Criteria Conference at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md, on July 7, 2000, to reassess clinical and neuropathological criteria for the diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Sequence of Alzheimer disease biomarker changes in cognitively normal adults: A cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2020-09-01

Cross-sectional data, including CSF analytes, molecular imaging of cerebral fibrillar β-amyloid (Aβ) with PET using the [ 11 C] benzothiazole tracer Pittsburgh compound B (PiB), MRI-based brain structures, and clinical/cognitive outcomes harmonized from 8 studies, collectively involving 3,284 cognitively normal individuals 18 to 101 years of age, were analyzed. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The results suggest that the hippocampus and the temporal horn of the lateral ventricles may be useful as antemortem markers of AD in mildly impaired patients. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Recent studies indicate that impairments in two cognitive domains characterize the cognitive abnormalities that appear earliest in the course of Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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