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.

Among the 1430 cognitively normal participants included, the mean (SD) age was 79.5 (5.3) years, 49.4% were men, the mean duration of education was 14.3 years, and 25.4% were APOE ε4 carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,630 Evidence: moderate

The utility of plasma total tau level as a prognostic marker for cognitive decline and dementia is not well understood. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 458 Evidence: moderate

Our main findings were: (i) FDG-PET uptake in the bilateral anterior cingulate cortex and anterior temporal pole was associated with baseline global cognition in cognitively stable 80+ (the resilience signature); (ii) established Alzheimer's disease imaging biomarkers did not predict baseline global cognition in this subset of participants; (iii) in the full MCSA 80+ and ADNI cohorts, amyloid burden and FDG-PET in the resilience signature were the stronger predictors of baseline global cognition; (iv) sex and systemic vascular health predicted FDG-PET in the resilience signature, suggesting vascular health maintenance as a potential pathway to preserve the metabolism of these areas; and (v) the resilience signature provided significant information about global longitudinal cognitive change even when considering amyloid status in both the MCSA and ADNI cohorts. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 192 Evidence: moderate

Age-related changes in the default mode network are more advanced in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurology 2011-10-05

The results of this study indicate that the DMN abnormalities observed in patients with AD represent an accelerated aging pattern of connectivity compared with matched controls. 3 key findings →

Participants: 28 Evidence: moderate

Total tau protein (T-Tau) and neurofilament light chain (NfL) have emerged as candidate plasma biomarkers of neurodegeneration, but studies have not compared how these biomarkers cross-sectionally or longitudinally associate with cognitive and neuroimaging measures. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 995 Evidence: moderate

Plasma and CSF neurofilament light: Relation to longitudinal neuroimaging and cognitive measures

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 2019-06-10

Elevated baseline plasma NfL is a prognostic marker of cognitive decline and neuroimaging measures of neurodegeneration, and has similar effect sizes to baseline CSF NfL. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal patterns of clinical decline differ between LPA and PCA but are heterogeneous and related to different patterns of topographic spread. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate

Amyloidosis in the absence of neurodegeneration did not have an adverse impact on practice effects or the 30-month cognitive trajectories. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

After adjusting for sex, years of education, smoking status, diabetes, hypertension, apolipoprotein E ε4 carriership, and hearing rehabilitation (defined as hearing aid or cochlear implant use), neither PTA (hazard ratio [HR] per 10-decibels hearing level increase of 0·99 (95% CI 0·89-1·12; p=0·91) nor WRS (HR per 10% decrease of 0·98, 95% CI 0·89-1 ·07; p=0·65) was significantly associated with the development of dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The consensus criteria for the diagnosis and classification of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) have served as an important tool in studying this group of disorders. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Spectrum of cognition short of dementia: Framingham Heart Study and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology 2015-10-09

We quantitated risk of progression to dementia in elderly persons without dementia from 2 population-based studies, the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), aged 70 to 89 years at enrollment. 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