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.

The Amyloid Hypothesis of Alzheimer's Disease: Progress and Problems on the Road to Therapeutics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Science 2002-07-19

It has been more than 10 years since it was first proposed that the neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD) may be caused by deposition of amyloid beta-peptide (Abeta) in plaques in brain tissue. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease at 25 years

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. EMBO Molecular Medicine 2016-03-29

Despite continuing debate about the amyloid β-protein (or Aβ hypothesis, new lines of evidence from laboratories and clinics worldwide support the concept that an imbalance between production and clearance of Aβ42 and related Aβ peptides is a very early, often initiating factor in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Enhanced Neurofibrillary Degeneration in Transgenic Mice Expressing Mutant Tau and APP

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Science 2001-08-24

JNPL3 transgenic mice expressing a mutant tau protein, which develop neurofibrillary tangles and progressive motor disturbance, were crossed with Tg2576 transgenic mice expressing mutant beta-amyloid precursor protein (APP), thus modulating the APP-Abeta (beta-amyloid peptide) environment.

Identifying Genetic Risk for Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Neurology 2023-12-28

In the last 2 years, there have been 3 successful trials of antiamyloid antibodies in Alzheimer disease (AD): aducanemab, now controversially US Food and Drug Administration-approved under the accelerated approval pathway1; lecanemab, now FDA-approved2; and donanemab, now going through the approval process.3 All 3 share a common broad mechanism, that is, antibody-mediated removal of β-amyloid (Aβ) from the brain, and this is almost certainly the basis of their therapeutic action.4 When used in the earliest symptomatic stages of AD, all have modest clinical effects, all clear Aβ from the brain, and all show evidence for some changes in molecular markers believed to be downstream of Aβ accumulation in keeping with disease modification.4 However, all these drugs-and several other antiamyloid immunotherapies that failed to show positive effects in clinical trials (e.g. bapineuzemab and gantenerumab)5,6-have the troubling adverse event of antibody-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Variants in the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 gene are linked with an increased risk of dementia, in particular the R47Hhet triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 variant is linked to late-onset Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Milestone Review: The History of Molecular Genetics Analysis of Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Journal of Neurochemistry 2025-07-01

Alzheimer research has been driven by genetic findings: from the 1990s until about 2005, by the identification of amyloid precursor protein (APP) and presenilin (PSEN) mutations, leading to the formulation of the amyloid hypothesis, and then from ~2007 by genome-wide studies which have led to the increasing appreciation of the importance of microglial insufficiency in the disease pathogenesis. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Aducanumab: a new phase in therapeutic development for Alzheimer’s disease?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. EMBO Molecular Medicine 2021-08-02

On 7 June , the FDA approved aducanumab, the first new drug for Alzheimer’s disease in almost 20 years—and notably, the first drug with a putative disease‐modifying mechanism for the treatment of this devastating disorder, namely the removal of β‐amyloid (or Aβ) plaques from the brain. 1 key finding →

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