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.

APOE ɛ4 was associated with atrophic hippocampal volume in MRI markers, increased cerebral amyloid deposition and cerebral hypometabolism. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,628 Evidence: high

Our findings indicate that quantitative gait measures predict future risk of cognitive decline and dementia in initially non-demented older adults. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 427 Evidence: moderate

Recently, several large randomised controlled trials about the treatments of cognitive impairment or dementia due to Parkinson's disease (CIND-PD or PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) were completed. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Observational studies support the use of NSAIDs for prevention of AD, but RCT do not. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Early metformin initiation was not associated with incident dementia in older adults newly diagnosed with diabetes. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 34,700 Evidence: null result

EOAD, although sharing genes with LOAD, harbors unique genes and pathways that could be used to create better prediction models or target identification. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control Participants: 25,236 Evidence: moderate

This preliminary report suggests that CETP V405 valine homozygosity is associated with slower memory decline and lower incident dementia and AD risk. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 523 Evidence: moderate

Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine are able to stabilize or slow decline in cognition, function, behavior, and global change. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Novel plasma assays enabled accurate blood-based biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases with minimally invasive options for clinical use. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,232 Evidence: low

This study reveals an important role of astrocytic apoE3 and apoE4 on the deposition and accumulation of Aβ plaques as well as on certain Aβ-associated downstream effects. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

A motor-based MCR syndrome provides a clinical approach to identify individuals at high risk for dementia, especially vascular dementia, to target for further investigations and who may benefit from preventive interventions. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

It is widely accepted that the familial Parkinson's disease (PD)-linked gene product, parkin, functions as a ubiquitin ligase involved in protein turnover via the ubiquitin-proteasome system. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

These new knock-in strains offer a novel and dynamic tool to study the role of APOE in AD pathogenesis in a spatially and temporally controlled manner. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mutations in RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) localized in ribonucleoprotein (RNP) granules, such as hnRNP A1 and TDP-43, promote aberrant protein aggregation, which is a pathological hallmark of various neurodegenerative diseases, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Clinical trials focusing on therapeutic candidates that modify β-amyloid (Aβ) have repeatedly failed to treat Alzheimer's disease (AD), suggesting that Aβ may not be the optimal target for treating AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

scGNN is a novel graph neural network framework for single-cell RNA-Seq analyses

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Nature communications 2021-03-25

Single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-Seq) is widely used to reveal the heterogeneity and dynamics of tissues, organisms, and complex diseases, but its analyses still suffer from multiple grand challenges, including the sequencing sparsity and complex differential patterns in gene expression. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Microglia-mediated T cell infiltration drives neurodegeneration in tauopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Nature 2023-03-08

Extracellular deposition of amyloid-β as neuritic plaques and intracellular accumulation of hyperphosphorylated, aggregated tau as neurofibrillary tangles are two of the characteristic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease 1,2 . 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mutation of the amyloid precursor protein (APP), presenilin-1, or presenilin-2 results in the development of early onset autosomal dominant forms of Alzheimer disease (AD). 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