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.

As the first NMA comparing different interventions for AD and MCI, our study suggests that PE and CCT might have a significant improvement in cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms respectively. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,747 Evidence: high

Blood pressure lowering and prevention of dementia: an individual patient data meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 80 out of 100. European Heart Journal 2022-12-21

The first single-stage individual patient data meta-analysis from randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials provides evidence to support benefits of antihypertensive treatment in late-mid and later life to lower the risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 28,008 Evidence: high

Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia receiving postacute care in HH or SNF experienced similar rates of readmission and mortality across settings. 2 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 977,946 Evidence: moderate

As one of few meta-analyses comparing different quantities of physical activity and exercise interventions for AD in details, our study suggests that physical activity and exercise can improve cognition of older adults with AD. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 673 Evidence: high

MRI as a biomarker of disease progression in a therapeutic trial of milameline for AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2003-01-01

The consistency of MRI measurements obtained across sites, and the consistency between the multisite milameline data and that obtained in prior single-site studies, demonstrate the technical feasibility of using structural MRI measures as a surrogate endpoint of disease progression in therapeutic trials. 1 key finding →

Participants: 362 Evidence: high

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is a microglial surface receptor genetically linked to the risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Rate of medial temporal lobe atrophy in typical aging and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 1998-10-01

A statistically significant yearly decline in hippocampal volume and an increase in temporal horn volume was identified in elderly control subjects who represent typical aging individuals. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 24 Evidence: low

Obesity-induced chronic liver inflammation is a hallmark of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)-an aggressive form of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The results of this study indicate an AD-specific peripheral complement signature associated with disease development, highlighting complement factors as critical immune mediators that link aging and AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 558 Evidence: moderate

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) are characterized by cytoplasmic protein aggregates in the brain and spinal cord that include TAR-DNA binding protein 43 (TDP-43). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) plays crucial roles in Alzheimer's disease (AD) by regulating microglia migration toward, and phagocytosis of oligomeric amyloid-β (oAβ) and amyloid plaques. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the amyloidogenic pathway associated with Alzheimer disease (AD), the amyloid precursor protein (APP) is cleaved by β-secretase to generate a 99-aa C-terminal fragment (C99) that is then cleaved by γ-secretase to generate the β-amyloid (Aβ) found in senile plaques. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The disease protein in frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive inclusions (FTLD-U) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) was identified recently as the TDP-43 (TAR DNA-binding protein 43), thereby providing a molecular link between these two disorders. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Elevated blood levels of phosphorylated tau (p-tau) are diagnostic of Alzheimer disease and are associated with the deposition of amyloid-β in the cerebral neuropil. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of dementia and its major subtypes in China. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

TAR DNA-binding protein (TDP-43) has been recently described as a major pathological protein in both frontotemporal dementia with ubiquitin-positive inclusions (FTLD-U) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 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