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.

Apathy is a common behavioral symptom of Alzheimer's disease (AD), being present in up to 70% of patients. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Occipital predominance of microbleeds with corresponding parietooccipital leukoaraiosis has not been well described in prior imaging studies of AD. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 80 Evidence: moderate

This statement serves as an overall guide for practitioners to gain a better understanding of VCI and dementia, prevention, and treatment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Diagnostic criteria for vascular cognitive disorders: a VASCOG statement

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2014-07-01

The proposed criteria for VCD provide a coherent approach to the diagnosis of this diverse group of disorders, with a view to stimulating clinical and pathologic validation studies. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Cerebrovascular compromise of the cholinergic pathways may be a factor that contributes more selectively than does total white matter lesion burden to response to cholinergic therapy in Alzheimer disease, particularly on frontal/executive tasks. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Since 1989, four Canadian Consensus Conferences on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD) have provided evidence-based dementia guidelines for Canadian clinicians and researchers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Hippocampal volumetry derived from structural MRI is increasingly used to delineate regions of interest for functional measurements, assess efficacy in therapeutic trials of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and has been endorsed by the new AD diagnostic guidelines as a radiological marker of disease progression. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Clinical, imaging, and pathological heterogeneity of the Alzheimer's disease syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2013-01-09

For example, focal temporal lobe dysfunction is associated with a pure amnestic syndrome, very slow decline, with atrophy and neurofibrillary tangles limited largely to the medial temporal region including the entorhinal cortex. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Given the recent acknowledgement of the complex mixed pathologies that contribute to the clinical expression of dementia, various cohort studies have aimed to examine Alzheimer's disease and cerebrovascular disease as comorbid pathologies, with neuroimaging playing a central role in these studies. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Because individuals develop dementia as a manifestation of neurodegenerative or neurovascular disorder, there is a need to develop reliable approaches to their identification. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The new MRI rating scale for WMH in cholinergic pathways is reliable and shows stronger correlations with cognitive performance than a general WMH rating scale in AD with WMH. 3 key findings →

Participants: 60 Evidence: low

Unusual clinical presentations of cortical-basal ganglionic degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Annals of neurology 1996-12-01

Cortical-basal ganglionic degeneration classically presents predominantly as a motor disorder with a unique constellation of histological alterations characterized by the presence of neuronal loss and gliosis in a selective distribution, swollen achromasic neurons, and extensive deposition of abnormal tau in neurons and glia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Canadian Stroke Network Vascular Cognitive Impairment Harmonization working group proposed a brief cognitive protocol for screening of vascular cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Social inappropriateness in neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. International psychogeriatrics 2017-07-10

Through various manifestations, social inappropriateness is frequently the first clinical sign of a neurodegenerative process, especially in AD and bvFTD, years before noticeable impairment on classical neuropsychological assessment and brain atrophy on imaging. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

In its early stages, Parkinson's disease (P.D.) may be difficult to distinguish from major depression (M.D.) leading to inappropriate management. 2 key findings →

Participants: 30 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