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.

These findings suggest that a hearing intervention might reduce cognitive change over 3 years in populations of older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline but not in populations at decreased risk for cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 858 Evidence: high

Changes in Alzheimer Disease Blood Biomarkers and Associations With Incident All-Cause Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. JAMA 2024-10-15

Plasma biomarkers of AD neuropathology, neuronal injury, and astrogliosis increase with age and are associated with known dementia risk factors. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,525 Evidence: high

With no effective treatments for cognitive decline or dementia, improving the evidence base for modifiable risk factors is a research priority. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 48,522 Evidence: high

Using cross-population GWAS meta-analyses, we identify novel LOAD susceptibility loci in/near LRRC4C and LHX5-AS1, both with known roles in neuronal development, as well as several novel population-unique loci. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 409,589 Evidence: high

A large fraction of dementia cases in the US were associated with potentially modifiable risk factors, especially for Black and Hispanic individuals. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Genome-wide association studies of cerebral white matter lesion burden: the CHARGE consortium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2011-06-01

This large GWAS of WMH burden in community-based cohorts of individuals of European descent identifies a novel locus on chromosome 17. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,024 Evidence: high

Data from 17 107 individuals (321 Asian, 635 Black, 829 Hispanic, and 15 322 White) with MCI or dementia and amyloid PET were analyzed between April 2020 and January 2022. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,154 Evidence: moderate

Midlife vascular risk factors are associated with increased risk of dementia in black and white ARIC Study participants. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 744 Evidence: moderate

We tested the hypothesis that plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) identifies asymptomatic carriers of familial frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD)-causing mutations at risk of disease progression. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 277 Evidence: moderate

In this study, risk of dementia significantly increased after ischemic stroke, independent of vascular risk factors. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 379 Evidence: moderate

Therefore, we conducted a longitudinal study to examine whether PM2.5 affects the episodic memory decline, and also explored the potential mediating role of increased neuroanatomic risk of Alzheimer's disease associated with exposure. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 998 Evidence: moderate

DNA methylation algorithms are increasingly used to estimate biological aging; however, how these proposed measures of whole-organism biological aging relate to aging in the brain is not known. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 649 Evidence: moderate

Contribution of Modifiable Midlife and Late-Life Vascular Risk Factors to Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-07-01

A total of 7731 participants were included in analysis of risk factors measured at age 45 to 54 years (4494 female [58%]; 2207 Black [29%]; 5524 White [71%]), 12 274 contributed to analysis of risk factors measured at age 55 to 64 years (6698 female [55%]; 2886 Black [24%]; 9388 White [76%]), and 6787 contributed to analysis of risk factors measured at age 65 to 74 years (3764 female [56%], 1375 Black [20%]; 5412 White [80%]). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 12,274 Evidence: moderate

We identified 4 novel genetic loci that implicate inflammatory and glial proliferative pathways in the development of WMH in addition to previously proposed ischemic mechanisms. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 17 Evidence: high

MCI prevalence varied among Hispanic/Latino backgrounds, but not as widely as reported in the previous studies. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,377 Evidence: moderate

This cohort study found that COVID-19 mortality decreased over time during 2020 and that patient demographic characteristics and comorbidities were associated with higher clinical severity. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 174 Evidence: moderate

We created global rating scoring rules for the CDR ® plus NACC FTLD to detect and track early frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and to conduct clinical trials in FTLD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 40 Evidence: moderate

The techniques evaluated were person-centered showering and the towel bath (a person-centered, in-bed bag-bath with no-rinse soap). 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Studies were significantly heterogeneous in terms of country, outcomes assessed, and the timing of post-ED outcome assessments. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 7,940 Evidence: high

Educational Attainment and Dementia: Mediation by Mid-Life Vascular Risk Factors

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Annals of Neurology 2023-04-27

A substantial proportion of the relationship between education and dementia was mediated through mid-life vascular risk factors. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 13,368 Evidence: moderate

Plasma Abeta, homocysteine, and cognition: the Vitamin Intervention for Stroke Prevention (VISP) trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Neurology 2009-01-01

This double-blind randomized controlled trial of vitamin therapy demonstrates a strong correlation between serum tHcy and plasma Abeta40 concentrations in subjects with ischemic stroke. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 150 Evidence: high

This cluster randomized clinical trial found that despite high adherence to the training, a multicomponent intervention promoting goal-directed care for suspected UTIs and LRIs did not significantly reduce antimicrobial use among nursing home residents with advanced dementia. 4 key findings →

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 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