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 of cerebral amyloid pathology in persons without dementia: a meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 84 out of 100. JAMA 2015-05-01

Among persons without dementia, the prevalence of cerebral amyloid pathology as determined by positron emission tomography or cerebrospinal fluid findings was associated with age, APOE genotype, and presence of cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,914 Evidence: high

The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I2 = 95%). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 49,227 Evidence: high

Apolipoprotein E Genotype and Sex Risk Factors for Alzheimer Disease: A Meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-10-01

Contrary to long-standing views, men and women with the APOE ε3/ε4 genotype have nearly the same odds of developing AD from age 55 to 85 years, but women have an increased risk at younger ages. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Baseline and 3-month visit data were available for 272 participants in arm 1 and 260 in arm 2 (median [IQR] age: 71 [65-77] and 71 [65-77] years; 150/272 male [55%] and 135/260 male [52%]; 122/272 female [45%] and 125/260 female [48%]; median [IQR] education: 12 [10-15] and 13 [10-16] years, respectively). 3 key findings →

Participants: 844 Evidence: high

Of 157 participants initially assessed, 137 were enrolled in the Age-Well clinical trial, and 127 were analyzed in this study. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 157 Evidence: high

We conducted a meta-analysis of the conflicting epidemiologic evidence on the association between midlife body mass index (BMI) and dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 19 Evidence: high

In clinical samples, people with amnestic MCI are at high risk of developing Alzheimer's disease dementia, with annual rates of progression from MCI to Alzheimer's disease estimated at approximately 10% to 15% compared with the base incidence rates of Alzheimer's disease dementia of 1% to 2% per year. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 33 Evidence: moderate

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

In the discovery cohort, the mean (SD) age was 70.9 (8.5) years, 191 (58%) were male, the mean (SD) MMSE score was 27.1 (1.9), and 110 individuals with MCI (33%) converted to dementia (71 to AD dementia). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 110 Evidence: moderate

The modern era of drug development for Alzheimer's disease began with the proposal of the cholinergic hypothesis of memory impairment and the 1984 research criteria for Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Multitracer model for staging cortical amyloid deposition using PET imaging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Neurology 2020-07-16

SUVr abnormality was most frequently observed in cingulate, followed by orbitofrontal, precuneal, and insular cortices and then the associative, temporal, and occipital regions. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 867 Evidence: moderate

Incidence and Prevalence of Frontotemporal Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-11-01

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, estimates indicate that FTD is comparable in frequency to dementia with Lewy bodies and occurs at higher rates than progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis 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

Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease: the IWG-2 criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. The Lancet Neurology 2014-05-18

This Position Paper evaluates the strengths and limitations of the International Working Group research diagnostic criteria and proposes advances to improve the diagnostic framework for Alzheimer's disease.

Evidence: low

Among 137 randomized participants, 2 were excluded for not meeting eligibility criteria, leaving 135 (mean [SD] age, 69.3 [3.8] years; 83 female [61%]) eligible for analysis. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

This study found no effect of ongoing BDZR use on ADAS-Cog scores in those with mild to moderate AD over 18 months. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 448 Evidence: high

Across the cohort of 212 individuals with SCD+ (M(Age) = 69.17 years, F 42.45%), 258 individuals with MCI (M(Age) = 72.93, F 43.80%), and 195 individuals with dementia (M(Age) = 74.07, F 48.72%), no main effect of education (ß = 0.52, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.58), but a significant education-by-group interaction on CL values, was found ( p = 0.024) using linear regression modeling. 1 key finding →

Participants: 212 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