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.

The positive association of choline for cognition has been reported in both animal and human studies, yet the associations of choline with the risks of incident dementia or Alzheimer's disease (AD) in humans is unclear. 4 key findings →

Participants: 3,224 Evidence: moderate

The average CHADS2 score was 3.3 ± 1.3. After a diagnosis of dementia, 405 individuals (16%) persisted on warfarin therapy. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,572 Evidence: moderate

Compared with individuals with the APOEepsilon3/epsilon3, the odds of having AD were significantly increased among those with 1 or more copies of the epsilon4 allele; the odds ratio (OR) for the epsilon3/epsilon4 genotype was 2.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-3.7), and the OR for the epsilon4/epsilon4 genotype was 10.5 (95% CI, 5.1-21.8). 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 338 Evidence: moderate

We compared two methods of diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI): conventional Petersen/Winblad criteria as operationalized by the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and an actuarial neuropsychological method put forward by Jak and Bondi designed to balance sensitivity and reliability. 1,150 ADNI participants were diagnosed at baseline as cognitively normal (CN) or MCI via ADNI criteria (MCI: n = 846; CN: n = 304) or Jak/Bondi criteria (MCI: n = 401; CN: n = 749), and the two MCI samples were submitted to cluster and discriminant function analyses. 2 key findings →

Participants: 846 Evidence: low

The mechanisms underpinning concussion, traumatic brain injury, and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and the relationships between these disorders, are poorly understood. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Longitudinal change in cognitive performance among individuals with mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neuropsychology 2007-03-01

The authors used mixed-effects growth models to examine longitudinal change in neuropsychological performance over a 4-year period among 197 individuals who were either normal or had mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at baseline. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 33 Evidence: moderate

Amyloid PET imaging has been crucial for detecting the accumulation of amyloid beta (Aβ) deposits in the brain and to study Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 13,409 Evidence: low

The Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer Disease study provides an instructive example of a process to develop risk assessment protocols that are sensitive to the implications of genetic testing for multiple ethnic groups with differing levels of risk. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are frequently seen on brain magnetic resonance imaging scans of older people. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

These findings contribute to the understanding of preclinical familial Alzheimer's disease and help set the stage for assessment of amyloid-modifying treatments in the prevention of familial Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Central auditory speech-processing deficits may be an early manifestation of probable Alzheimer's disease and may precede the onset of dementia diagnosis by many years. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Two of every three persons living with dementia reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The proposed method offers a fully automated procedure, providing an opportunity to develop an inexpensive, broadly accessible, and easy-to-administer screening tool for MCI-to-AD progression prediction, facilitating development of remote assessment. 1 key finding →

Participants: 166 Evidence: low

Simvastatin is associated with a reduced incidence of dementia and Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. BMC medicine 2007-07-19

We observed that simvastatin is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of dementia in subjects > or =65 years, using any of three models. 5 key findings →

Participants: 700,000 Evidence: low

Progression of Alzheimer dementia (AD) is highly variable. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The final Dementia Screening Indicator included age (1 point/year; ages, 65-79 years), less than 12 years of education (9 points), stroke (6 points), diabetes mellitus (3 points), body mass index less than 18.5 kg/m(2) (8 points), requiring assistance with money or medications (10 points), and depressive symptoms (6 points). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Glucose indices are associated with cognitive and structural brain measures in young adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2015-05-06

The sample included dementia-free participants (mean age 40 ± 9 years; 53% women) of the Framingham Heart Study third-generation cohort with cognitive testing of memory, abstract reasoning, visual perception, attention, and executive function (n = 2,126). 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,126 Evidence: moderate

Cross-ancestry sex-stratified analyses identified several loci with evidence of interaction (p 0.05). 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 25,284 Evidence: high

↑ 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.

1,034 records (3.6% 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