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.

Changes in Alzheimer Disease Blood Biomarkers and Associations With Incident All-Cause Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. JAMA 2024-10-15

Plasma biomarkers of AD neuropathology, neuronal injury, and astrogliosis increase with age and are associated with known dementia risk factors. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,525 Evidence: high

Our study confirmed the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for improving cognition or slowing down the progression of cognitive impairment in AD patients and recommended several interventions for clinical practice. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 682 Evidence: high

After adjusting for various risk factors, participants with low socioeconomic status (vs high) had increased risk for early-onset dementia (3·38, 2·61-4·37), and overall lifestyle mediated 3·2% (1·8-5·7) of the association. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 345 Evidence: moderate

Assessment of Advanced Glycation End Products and Receptors and the Risk of Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA network open 2021-01-04

Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) and their receptor (RAGE) are implicated in the pathophysiological processes of dementia and potentially underlie the association of diabetes with neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,021 Evidence: moderate

Large-scale plasma proteomic analysis identifies proteins and pathways associated with dementia risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Nature aging 2021-05-14

The plasma proteomic changes that precede the onset of dementia could yield insights into disease biology and highlight new biomarkers and avenues for intervention. 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,110 Evidence: moderate

Inflammatory protein biomarkers induced by immune responses have been associated with cognitive decline and the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 708 Evidence: moderate

Long-term exposure to PM 2.5 , NO 2 , and/or BC in Denmark were associated with mortality beyond cardiorespiratory diseases, including diabetes, dementia, psychiatric disorders, asthma, and ALRI. 5 key findings →

Participants: 803,881 Evidence: moderate

Plasma-based biomarkers would be potential biomarkers for early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) because they are more available and cost-effective than cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or neuroimaging. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 185 Evidence: moderate

Intimate metabolic host-microbiome crosstalk regulates immune, metabolic, and neuronal response in health and disease, yet remains untapped for biomarkers or intervention for disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 77 Evidence: moderate

Multi-modal latent factor exploration of atrophy, cognitive and tau heterogeneity in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. NeuroImage 2019-07-22

Individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia exhibit significant heterogeneity across clinical symptoms, atrophy patterns, and spatial distribution of Tau deposition. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is a transmembrane protein that is predominantly expressed by microglia in the brain. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Infections have been associated with the incidence of Alzheimer disease and related dementias, but the mechanisms responsible for these associations remain unclear. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Overall, the CDT may be as effective as the MMSE or CASI as a first-level dementia screen for clinical use in multiethnic, multilingual samples of older adults. 3 key findings →

Participants: 295 Evidence: low

The human G-protein-coupled formyl peptide receptor-like 1 (FPRL1) and its mouse homologue mFPR2 mediate the chemotactic activity of a variety of polypeptides associated with inflammation and bacterial infection, including the 42-amino acid form of amyloid beta peptide (Abeta42), a pathogenic factor in Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent theories have suggested that chronic pain could be partly maintained by maladaptive physiological responses of the organism facing a recurrent stressor. 5 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: low

The results project substantial cost savings from implementing a blood test for AD pathology within the diagnostic pathway based on modeling results, which future research should confirm with actual data. 4 key findings →

Design: modelling Evidence: preliminary

↑ 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