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.

Prevalence Estimates of Amyloid Abnormality Across the Alzheimer Disease Clinical Spectrum

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2022-03-01

This study found that CSF-based estimates using adjusted data-driven cutoffs were up to 10% higher than PET-based estimates in people without dementia, whereas the results were similar among people with dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 97 Evidence: moderate

TREM2 is a transmembrane receptor that is predominantly expressed by microglia in the central nervous system. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,027 Evidence: moderate

The heterogeneity of neurodegenerative diseases is a key confound to disease understanding and treatment development, as study cohorts typically include multiple phenotypes on distinct disease trajectories. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Predicting Alzheimer's disease progression using multi-modal deep learning approach

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Scientific reports 2019-02-13

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative condition marked by a decline in cognitive functions with no validated disease modifying treatment. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

White matter lesions: Spatial heterogeneity, links to risk factors, cognition, genetics, and atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2018-08-03

These results support the hypothesis that the appearance of WMH follows age and disease-dependent regional distribution patterns, potentially influenced by differential underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, and possibly with a differential link to vascular and neurodegenerative changes. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,836 Evidence: moderate

Association of hearing impairment with brain volume changes in older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. NeuroImage 2014-01-09

Hearing impairment in older adults is independently associated in longitudinal studies with accelerated cognitive decline and incident dementia, and in cross-sectional studies, with reduced volumes in the auditory cortex. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 126 Evidence: moderate

In this cross-sectional study of plasma biomarkers by race and genetic ancestry, the results indicated that plasma p-tau181, Aβ40, and NFL were lower in African American individuals based on self-reported race but not genetic ancestry. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 617 Evidence: low

Our findings suggest that poor olfaction is associated with multiple AD-related and other neurodegenerative processes. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,545 Evidence: moderate

We found no significant correlation between CSF biomarkers and cognitive scores in any of the 3 clinical groups individually. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 399 Evidence: low

We found no statistically significant difference in measures of WM injury by race and ethnicity after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors and socioeconomic status. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,036 Evidence: low

These findings suggest an association of sHHV infection with white matter volume loss, attentional decline, and astrogliosis. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 119 Evidence: moderate

Quality of End-of-Life Care Provided to Patients With Different Serious Illnesses

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2016-08-01

Among 57 753 decedents, approximately half of the patients with ESRD, cardiopulmonary failure, or frailty received palliative care consultations (adjusted proportions, 50.4%, 46.7%, and 43.7%, respectively) vs 73.5% of patients with cancer and 61.4% of patients with dementia (P Conclusions and relevance Family-reported quality of end-of-life care was significantly better for patients with cancer and those with dementia than for patients with ESRD, cardiopulmonary failure, or frailty, largely owing to higher rates of palliative care consultation and do-not-resuscitate orders and fewer deaths in the intensive care unit among patients with cancer and those with dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Definition and description of schizophrenia in the DSM-5

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Schizophrenia research 2013-06-22

Although dementia praecox or schizophrenia has been considered a unique disease for over a century, its definitions and boundaries have changed over this period and its etiology and pathophysiology remain elusive. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Income, Race-Ethnicity, and Dementia Risk Factors in the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2025-11-12

There were 13,145 individuals with risk factor data between 2015 and 2018 (51.1% aged 18-44, 31.0% aged 45-64, and 17.9% aged ≥65 years; 51.5% female after survey-weighting). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 13,145 Evidence: low

The sample included 2 619 464 patients (mean [SD] age, 81.3 [8.6] years; 61% women; 87% were White; 8% were Black; 22% with ADRD). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 464 Evidence: low

Lexical and Acoustic Speech Features Relating to Alzheimer Disease Pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 2022-07-25

We compared digital speech and language features of patients with amnestic Alzheimer disease (aAD) or logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) in a biologically confirmed cohort and related these features to neuropsychiatric test scores and CSF analytes. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 44 Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal change in CSF Tau and Aβ biomarkers for up to 48 months in ADNI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2013-06-29

The dynamics of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tau and Aβ biomarkers over time in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients from prodromal pre-symptomatic to severe stages of dementia have not been clearly defined and recent studies, most of which are cross-sectional, present conflicting findings. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

↑ 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