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.

Serial MRI and CSF biomarkers in normal aging, MCI, and AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 2010-07-01

Unlike the CSF biomarkers evaluated, changes in serial structural MRI are correlated with concurrent change on general cognitive and functional indices in impaired subjects, track with clinical disease stage, and are influenced by APOE genotype. 3 key findings →

Participants: 312 Evidence: low

Updated TDP-43 in Alzheimer's disease staging scheme

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2016-01-25

In this study, we update the TDP-43 in Alzheimer's disease staging scheme by assessing the topography of TDP-43 in 193 cases of Alzheimer's disease, in 14 different brain regions (eight previously described plus six newly reported) and use conditional probability to model the spread of TDP-43 across the 14 brain regions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

MRI correlates of neurofibrillary tangle pathology at autopsy: a voxel-based morphometry study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2008-09-01

Patterns of gray matter loss are associated with neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) pathology, specifically with NFT burden at Braak stages III and IV and with Braak stage itself at higher stages. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The MRI and 1H MRS findings in single-domain aMCI are consistent with a pattern similar to that of Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 32 Evidence: moderate

Compared with typical AD, hippocampal-sparing AD has more neurofibrillary tangles in the cortex and fewer in the hippocampus, whereas the opposite pattern is seen in limbic-predominant AD. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Longitudinal 1H MRS changes in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2006-07-24

Magnetic resonance (MR)-based volume measurements of atrophy are potential markers of disease progression in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Application of the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association AD criteria to ADNI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2013-05-03

A large proportion of subjects with AD dementia in ADNI may be categorized more definitively as high-probability AD using the proposed biomarker scheme in the NIA-AA criteria. 4 key findings →

Participants: 211 Evidence: low

CSF phosphorylated tau as an indicator of subsequent tau accumulation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2022-05-26

We evaluated the relationship between baseline CSF p-tau181 and the rate of tau PET change in the temporal meta-ROI and entorhinal cortex (ERC) and how it varied by amyloid level (CSF Aβ42 or amyloid PET) among 143 individuals from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and Mayo Alzheimer Disease Research Center. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 143 Evidence: moderate

Association of hypometabolism and amyloid levels in aging, normal subjects

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2014-05-02

Hypometabolism in PiB-positive, cognitively normal subjects in a population-based cohort occurs in AD-signature cortical regions and to a lesser extent in other cortical regions. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Associations of quantitative susceptibility mapping with Alzheimer's disease clinical and imaging markers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. NeuroImage 2020-10-06

Altered iron metabolism has been hypothesized to be associated with Alzheimer's disease pathology, and prior work has shown associations between iron load and beta amyloid plaques. 5 key findings →

Participants: 421 Evidence: low

MRI patterns of atrophy associated with progression to AD in amnestic mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurology 2007-09-26

The regions of loss observed in subjects with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) who progressed to Alzheimer disease (AD) within 18 months of the MRI are typical of subjects with AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

DWI predicts future progression to Alzheimer disease in amnestic mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2005-03-01

The authors assessed whether measures of hippocampal water diffusivity at baseline can predict future progression to Alzheimer disease (AD) in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

We recently demonstrated that the frequencies of biomarker groups defined by the presence or absence of both amyloidosis (A+) and neurodegeneration (N+) changed dramatically by age in cognitively non-impaired subjects. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Short-term clinical outcomes for stages of NIA-AA preclinical Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neurology 2012-05-02

Of the 296 initially normal subjects, 31 (10%) progressed to a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia (27 amnestic MCI, 2 nonamnestic MCI, and 2 non-AD dementias) within 1 year. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

As preclinical Alzheimer's disease becomes a target for therapeutic intervention, the overlap between imaging abnormalities associated with typical ageing and those associated with Alzheimer's disease needs to be recognised. 4 key findings →

Participants: 985 Evidence: low

CSF biomarkers in Olmsted County: Evidence of 2 subclasses and associations with demographics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology 2020-06-26

We hypothesize the population without dementia can be subdivided into participants with and without biological Alzheimer disease (AD) based on the combination of CSF Aβ42 and p-tau/t-tau (represented also by the p-tau/t-tau/Aβ42 ratio). 5 key findings →

Participants: 547 Evidence: low

TDP-43 is a key player in the clinical features associated with Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2014-03-23

The aim of this study was to determine whether the TAR DNA-binding protein of 43 kDa (TDP-43) has any independent effect on the clinical and neuroimaging features typically ascribed to Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology, and whether TDP-43 pathology could help shed light on the phenomenon of resilient cognition in AD. 2 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