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.

Between Feb 24, 2021, and March 5, 2023, 377 dyads were randomly assigned (1:1), 189 to usual treatment and 188 to intervention. 2 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 377 Evidence: high

Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2024 report of the Lancet standing Commission

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. The Lancet 2024-08-10

This expert commission synthesized decades of population-level (observational) research to estimate how much dementia risk could theoretically be reduced by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors across life, from childhood education to late-life social isolation. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic-review Evidence: moderate

Decreases in depression scores at 13 weeks did not differ between 111 controls and 107 participants allocated to receive sertraline (mean difference 1·17, 95% CI -0·23 to 2·58; p=0·10) or mirtazapine (0·01, -1·37 to 1·38; p=0·99), or between participants in the mirtazapine and sertraline groups (1·16, -0·25 to 2·57; p=0·11); these findings persisted to 39 weeks. 3 key findings →

Participants: 107 Evidence: low

Because of the exploratory nature of the analyses and the small sample sizes for subgroup analysis there is the need for caution in interpreting these data. 2 key findings →

Participants: 111 Evidence: high

Our model could aid GPs or health service planners with the early detection of dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 93,120 Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment: the Manchester consensus

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Age and ageing 2021-01-01

Given considerable variation in diagnostic and therapeutic practice, there is a need for national guidance on the use of neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers, cognitive testing, follow-up and diagnostic terminology in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

These data suggest that quality of life in dementia is complex, and that simple proxy substitutions of discrete measures such as cognition or function are likely to miss important factors. 5 key findings →

Participants: 101 Evidence: low

Six predefined service goals were set: high acceptability; high appropriate referral rate; successful engagement with people from minority ethnic groups; successful engagement with people with young onset dementia; focus on engagement with mild cases to enable early intervention; and an increase in the overall number of new cases of dementia seen. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

There have, however, been few studies which have sought to investigate factors associated with carer burden and differences and similarities between countries. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The findings suggest that specific cultural attitudes towards the caregiving role have important implications for how carers can best be supported. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Gut microbiota in neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Journal of neuroimmunology 2019-01-09

Gut dysbiosis, a primary factor behind various gastrointestinal disorders may also augment lipopolysaccharides, pro-inflammatory cytokines, T helper cells and monocytes causing increased intestinal and BBB permeability via microbiota-gut-brain axis. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Further research with DEMQOL is needed to confirm these findings in an independent sample, evaluate responsiveness, investigate the feasibility of use in specific subgroups and in economic evaluation, and develop population norms. 2 key findings →

Participants: 130 Evidence: low

A Physicist's Perspective on Metabolic Rejuvenation After 50

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

Chronic metabolic diseases, including Type 2 Diabetes, hypertension, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), prostate enlargement, musculoskeletal joint friction, cardiac arrhythmias, neurodegenerative waste accumulation (Alzheimer's), and elevated intraocular hydraulic pressure (glaucoma), are frequently treated as distinct, unavoidable consequences of chronological aging. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Progranulin deficiency promotes neuroinflammation through cathepsin B-mediated activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. bioRxiv 2026-10-13

Haploinsufficiency of progranulin (resulting from mutations in the GRN gene) is a major genetic cause of frontotemporal dementia (FTD), which is characterized by profound changes in personality and behavior, progressive impairments in executive function, speech, language and/or movement, TDP-43 pathology, lysosomal dysfunction, and neuroinflammation. 5 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 27,380 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