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.

Postmenopausal hormone therapy and regional brain volumes: the WHIMS-MRI Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Neurology 2009-01-01

Conjugated equine estrogens with or without MPA are associated with greater brain atrophy among women aged 65 years and older; however, the adverse effects are most evident in women experiencing cognitive deficits before initiating hormone therapy. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Longitudinal pattern of regional brain volume change differentiates normal aging from MCI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Neurology 2009-06-01

Early identification of patterns of abnormality is of fundamental importance for detecting disease onset and tracking progression. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,017 Evidence: moderate

EDIC participants had consistently higher brain age values compared with controls without diabetes, indicative of approximately 6 additional years of brain aging (EDIC participants: β, 6.16; SE, 0.71; control participants: β, 1.04; SE, 0.04; P Conclusions and relevance The findings of this study suggest an increase in brain aging among individuals with T1D without any early signs of AD-related neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 416 Evidence: high

Association of hearing impairment with brain volume changes in older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. NeuroImage 2014-01-09

Hearing impairment in older adults is independently associated in longitudinal studies with accelerated cognitive decline and incident dementia, and in cross-sectional studies, with reduced volumes in the auditory cortex. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 126 Evidence: moderate

A challenge in developing informative neuroimaging biomarkers for early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease is the need to identify biomarkers that are evident before the onset of clinical symptoms, and which have sufficient sensitivity and specificity on an individual patient basis. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal ComBat: A method for harmonizing longitudinal multi-scanner imaging data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. NeuroImage 2020-07-05

While aggregation of neuroimaging datasets from multiple sites and scanners can yield increased statistical power, it also presents challenges due to systematic scanner effects. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 663 Evidence: moderate

These findings suggest an association of sHHV infection with white matter volume loss, attentional decline, and astrogliosis. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 119 Evidence: moderate

Neuroimaging has made it possible to measure pathological brain changes associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in vivo. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

High-dimensional pattern classification was applied to baseline and multiple follow-up MRI scans of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), in order to investigate the potential of predicting short-term conversion to Alzheimer's Disease (AD) on an individual basis. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Spatial patterns of brain atrophy in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) were measured via methods of computational neuroanatomy. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Cross-sectional and longitudinal association of body mass index and brain volume

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Human brain mapping 2012-09-24

Although a link between body mass index (BMI) and brain volume has been established in several cross-sectional studies, evidence of the association between change in BMI over time and changes in brain structure is limited. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Biomarkers for early detection of Alzheimer pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Neuro-Signals 2007-12-05

The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and the devastating consequences of late-life dementia motivates the drive to develop diagnostic biomarkers to reliably identify the pathology associated with this disorder. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The genetics dataset yielded two subtypes of AD characterized mainly by the presence/absence of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 genotype, but also involving differential presence of risk alleles of CD2AP, SPON1 and LOC39095 SNPs that were associated with differences in the respective patterns of brain atrophy, especially in the precuneus. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Prediction of MCI to AD conversion, via MRI, CSF biomarkers, and pattern classification

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2010-07-01

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) patterns were examined together with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in serial scans of Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Imputation-Based Harmonization Mitigates Site Effects Without Data Leakage in Machine Learning Studies

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. bioRxiv 2026-10-05

Neuroimaging studies that pool data across clinical sites often suffer from site effects — variability in imaging measures that arises from technical heterogeneity across sites as opposed to true biological signal. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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