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.

Amyloid β (Aβ) damages neurons and triggers microglial inflammatory activation in the Alzheimer disease (AD) brain. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs), composed of truncated and hyperphosphorylated tau, are a common feature of numerous aging-related neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recently, 3 rare coding variants significantly associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk have been identified in western populations using whole exome sequencing method, including p.R47H in TREM2, p.V232M in PLD3, and p.T835M in UNC5C. To examine whether these variants are genetic risk factors in patients with AD from mainland China, we sequenced exon 2 of TREM2, exon 9 of PLD3, and exon 15 of UNC5C in Chinese Han population including 360 patients with AD and 400 control individuals. 3 key findings →

Participants: 360 Evidence: low

Chicoric acid (CA), a natural phenolic acid extracted from chicory and the echinacea (purple coneflower) plant ( Echinacea purpurea ), has been regarded as a nutraceutical that has powerful antioxidant and antiobesity activities. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We used resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure the amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (ALFF) of intrinsic brain activity in 23 patients with moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 27 age- and gender-matched healthy controls. 5 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

MemTrax can effectively detect both clinically diagnosed MCI and AD with better accuracy as compared to the MoCA based on AUCs in a Chinese cohort. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Polygala tenuifolia : a source for anti-Alzheimer's disease drugs

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Pharmaceutical biology 2020-12-01

Polygala tenuifolia and its active components have multiplex neuroprotective potential associated with AD, such as anti-A β aggregation, anti-Tau protein, anti-inflammation, antioxidant, anti-neuronal apoptosis, enhancing central cholinergic system and promote neuronal proliferation. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The pro-inflammatory activation of microglia is a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD), and this process involves a switch from oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) toward glycolysis. 1 key finding →

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

deepDR: a network-based deep learning approach to in silico drug repositioning

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 2019-12-01

In this study, we developed a network-based deep-learning approach, termed deepDR, for in silico drug repurposing by integrating 10 networks: one drug-disease, one drug-side-effect, one drug-target and seven drug-drug networks. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Synaptic loss in the brain correlates well with disease severity in Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Association between the oxytocin receptor gene and amygdalar volume in healthy adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Biological psychiatry 2010-09-15

The present results suggest that OXTR might be associated with the susceptibility to ASD, especially in its aspects of social interaction and communication mediated by a modulation of amygdala development, one of the most distributed brain regions with high density of OXTR. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

As a disease-modifying approach for Alzheimer's disease (AD), clioquinol (CQ) targets beta-amyloid (Abeta) reactions with synaptic Zn and Cu yet promotes metal uptake. 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