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.

Diabetes, Alzheimer disease, and vascular dementia: a population-based neuropathologic study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2010-08-25

Elderly patients with diabetes develop more extensive vascular pathology, which alone or together with AD-type pathology (particularly in APOE ε4 carriers) results in increased dementia risk. 2 key findings →

Participants: 553 Evidence: low

The risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) probably results from an interaction between genetic and environmental factors. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,449 Evidence: low

Recent findings suggest that a rich social network may decrease the risk of developing dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Anaemia increases the risk of dementia in cognitively intact elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2006-02-01

Although cross-sectional studies found an association between anaemia and dementia, longitudinal studies provided contradictory results. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,139 Evidence: moderate

Accelerated progression from mild cognitive impairment to dementia in people with diabetes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Diabetes 2010-08-16

Diabetes and pre-diabetes substantially accelerate the progression from MCI to dementia, and anticipate dementia occurrence by more than 3 years in people with MCI. 3 key findings →

Participants: 302 Evidence: moderate

Cerebrospinal fluid tau and CSF-Abeta42 have so far been studied in research settings, under conditions providing data on the optimal performance. 1 key finding →

Participants: 105 Evidence: low

Family history of dementia was associated with an increased risk of dementia and AD in this very old population, but only among APOE epsilon4 carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 907 Evidence: moderate

During the 6534 person-years of follow-up (mean, 5.02 years per person), 440 subjects were diagnosed as having dementia, including 333 with Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,301 Evidence: moderate

Our results suggest that risperidone may affect the CSF profile of AD biomarkers indicating more amyloid pathology. 5 key findings →

Participants: 44 Evidence: high

Blood Biomarkers of Alzheimer Disease and Rates of Global and Domain-Specific Cognitive Decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. JAMA network open 2026-08-03

Moreover, there is limited knowledge regarding associations with domain-specific cognitive decline and modifying effects of key individual characteristics. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,008 Evidence: moderate

The sensitivity of CSF-beta-amyloid(1-42) level as a diagnostic marker for AD is high. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

We studied CSF-tau and CSF-Abeta42 in 16 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) who at follow-up investigations 6-27 months later had progressed to Alzheimer's disease (AD) with dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Practical lessons from amyloid immunotherapy trials in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Current Alzheimer research 2012-12-01

More open debates of practical experiences from different trial centres and sponsors are essential for optimizing trial designs and improving conditions for participants. 2 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: high

In order to observe changes owing to aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the volumes of subdivisions of the hippocampus and the number of neurons of the hippocampal formation, 18 normal brains from subjects who died of nonneurological causes and had no history of long-term illness or dementia (ten of these brains comprised the aged control group) and 13 AD brains were analyzed. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

APOE and cognitive decline in preclinical Alzheimer disease and non-demented aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2004-09-01

Although possession of the APOE epsilon4 allele is a risk factor for AD in old age, it does not modify the progression of the disease during the preclinical period. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The 39- to 43-amino acid amyloid beta-protein (A beta), which is progressively deposited in cerebral plaques and blood vessels in Alzheimer disease (AD), is secreted by cultured human cells during normal metabolism. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between cerebrospinal fluid Alzheimer's disease (AD) markers and depression in elderly people. 4 key findings →

Participants: 183 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