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.

Association of Delirium With Long-term Cognitive Decline: A Meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2020-11-01

Of 1583 articles, data subjected from the 24 studies (including 3562 patients who experienced delirium and 6987 controls who did not) were included in a random-effects meta-analysis for pooled effect estimates and random-effects meta-regressions to identify sources of study variance. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 3,562 Evidence: high

Symptomatic mutation carriers also demonstrated elevated tau PET binding in the basal ganglia, consistent with prior work with amyloid-β. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Whether or not there is targeted pharmacotherapy for dementia, an active and healthy lifestyle that includes physical activity (PA) may be a better option than medication for preventing dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 484,169 Evidence: low

In this cohort of U.S. women, PM2.5 exposure was associated with lower MRI-based WMV, an indication of brain aging, only among women whose usual diet was less consistent with the MIND-like dietary pattern at baseline. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP8036. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,302 Evidence: moderate

While cytoplasmic aggregation of TDP-43 is a pathological hallmark of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia, how aggregates form and what drives its nuclear clearance have not been determined. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Racial disparities in dementia may be reduced by prevention and management of disease and promoting educational attainment among blacks and Hispanics. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The results demonstrate that, although the number of biomarkers has rapidly expanded, many are interrelated and few strongly predict clinical outcomes. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Souvenaid in the management of mild cognitive impairment: an expert consensus opinion

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2019-08-17

Early and accurate diagnosis of MCI provides a window of opportunity to improve the outcomes using a multimodal management approach including lifestyle risk factor modification and consideration of the multinutrient Souvenaid. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

The triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is an immune receptor that affects cellular phenotypes by modulating phagocytosis and metabolism, promoting cell survival, and counteracting inflammation. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

US Health Care Spending by Payer and Health Condition, 1996-2016

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. JAMA 2020-03-01

Total health care spending increased from an estimated $1.4 trillion in 1996 (13.3% of gross domestic product [GDP]; $5259 per person) to an estimated $3.1 trillion in 2016 (17.9% of GDP; $9655 per person); 85.2% of that spending was included in this study. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

We enrolled 69 individuals diagnosed with Lewy body dementia (LBD), comprising both dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) (n = 36) and Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) (n = 33). 4 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: low

These findings support that a complex gut microbiome is required for behavioural defects, microglia activation and AD pathologies, the gut microbiome contributes to pathologies in an AD mouse model and that dysbiosis of the human microbiome might be a risk factor for AD. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Imaging retina to study dementia and stroke

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Progress in retinal and eye research 2017-01-03

With increase in life expectancy, the number of persons suffering from common age-related brain diseases, including neurodegenerative (e.g., dementia) and cerebrovascular (e.g., stroke) disease is expected to rise substantially. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia in the elderly population. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the primary matched-feature comparison, reference areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were 0.851 for ADNI tau90, 0.860 for ADNI tau180, and 0.933 for OASIS3 tau180. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

↑ 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