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.

FDA-approved anti-Aβ mabs have a role in slowing disease progression in patients with AD, at the cost of an increased probability of side effects. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 4,471 Evidence: high

In patients aged 65 years and older undergoing hip fracture surgery, regional anesthesia without sedation did not significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium compared with general anesthesia. 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 476 Evidence: high

Combining multi-modality brain data for disease diagnosis commonly leads to improved performance. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

In general, the MoCA-BJ is an acceptable tool for MCI screening in both urban and rural regions of Beijing. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 115 Evidence: low

Our meta-analysis identified similar distributions of neuroanatomical changes in AD and MCI, which are consistent with the hierarchical model of neuropathological alterations of neurofibrillary tangles in AD and MCI. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Longitudinal CSF and MRI biomarkers improve the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2005-08-26

The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is limited because it is based on non-specific behavioral and neuroimaging findings. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The results of this study indicate an AD-specific peripheral complement signature associated with disease development, highlighting complement factors as critical immune mediators that link aging and AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 558 Evidence: moderate

Bile acids (BAs) may contribute to dementia by regulating neuroinflammation and influencing gut-brain axis signaling, especially in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major neurodegenerative disease and the most common cause of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Indirect Costs of Alzheimer's Disease: Unpaid Caregiver Burden and Patient Productivity Loss

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Value in Health 2024-11-19

Conventional cost estimates, which do not consider unpaid caregiver burden and patient productivity loss, significantly underestimate the total burden of AD. 3 key findings →

Design: modelling Evidence: early

Along with rapid global population aging, the age-related cognitive disorders such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia have posed a serious threat to public health, health care system, and sustainable economic and societal development of all countries. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is found to have striking brain inflammation characterized by clusters of reactive microglia that surround senile plaques. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive and depressive disorders are common in elderly Chinese and are becoming an increasingly important public health problem, partly because of the rapid aging of the population. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Blood-based tests have sparked tremendous attention in non-invasive early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), a most prevalent neurodegenerative malady worldwide. 3 key findings →

Participants: 27 Evidence: low

Early life experience influences stress reactivity and mental health through effects on cognitive-emotional functions that are, in part, linked to gene expression in the dorsal and ventral hippocampus. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

With a rapidly aging population, general practitioners are confronting the challenge of how to determine those who are at greatest risk for dementia and potentially need more specialized follow-up to mitigate symptoms early in its course. 4 key findings →

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