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.

ADNI has demonstrated the feasibility and utility of multicenter PET studies and is helping to clarify the role of biomarkers in the study of aging and dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

Amyloid-β 11C-PiB-PET imaging results from 2 randomized bapineuzumab phase 3 AD trials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Neurology 2015-07-24

The (11)C-PiB-PET imaging results demonstrated reduction of fibrillar Aβ accumulation in patients with Alzheimer disease treated with bapineuzumab; however, as no clinical benefit was observed, the findings are consistent with the hypotheses that bapineuzumab may not have been initiated early enough in the disease course, the doses were insufficient, or the most critical Aβ species were inadequately targeted. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 115 Evidence: low

[11C]PIB in a nondemented population: potential antecedent marker of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Neurology 2006-08-01

Longitudinal studies will be required to determine the association of elevated [(11)C]PIB binding and risk of developing dementia of the Alzheimer type. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Although beta-amyloid (Abeta) plaques are a primary diagnostic criterion for Alzheimer's disease, this pathology is commonly observed in the brains of non-demented older individuals. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

Among the 183 study participants, mean (SD) age was 85.5 (3) years, 76 were women (41.5%), and 177 were white (96.7%). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 183 Evidence: low

Our data suggest that [F-18]-AV-1451 holds promise as a surrogate marker for the detection of brain tau pathology in the form of tangles and paired helical filament-tau-containing neurites in Alzheimer brains but also point to its relatively lower affinity for lesions primarily made of straight tau filaments in non-Alzheimer tauopathy cases and to the existence of some [F-18]-AV-1451 off-target binding. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Serotonin (5-HT) neuron and neurotransmitter loss in normal aging and neuropsychiatric diseases of late life may contribute to behavioral changes commonly observed in the elderly population. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The identification of amyloid deposits in living Alzheimer disease (AD) patients is important for both early diagnosis and for monitoring the efficacy of newly developed anti-amyloid therapies. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

These findings suggest that either microglial activation is limited to later stages of severe AD or [11C](R)-PK11195 is too insensitive to detect the level of microglial activation associated with mild to moderate AD. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Small-molecule PET Tracers for Imaging Proteinopathies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Seminars in nuclear medicine 2017-07-13

In this chapter, we provide a review of the challenges and advances in developing successful PET imaging agents for 3 major types of aggregated amyloid proteins: amyloid-beta (Aβ), tau, and alpha-synuclein (α-syn). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The amyloid cascade hypothesis suggests that the aggregation and deposition of amyloid-beta protein is an initiating event in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Imaging beta-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles in the aging human brain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Current pharmaceutical design 2004-01-01

The development of radioligands to image beta-amyloid (A beta) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in vivo in the aging human brain is an important and active area of radiopharmaceutical design. 3 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