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.

Plasma Phosphorylated Tau 217 to Identify Preclinical Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-11-01

Participants had a mean (SD) age of 66.9 (9.9) years; 971 (33.3%) were Aβ positive by either CSF or PET, 1667 (57.2%) were women, and 1108 (38.1%) carried at least 1 APOE ε4 allele. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,916 Evidence: high

In DDI (n = 431), participants were classified as CN A-/T- (n = 169), A+/T- (CN = 26, MCI = 24), A+/T+ (CN = 40, MCI = 105), and A-/T+ (CN = 34, MCI = 33), with a mean age of 64.1 years and 55.9% female. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 431 Evidence: moderate

Evaluation of the Revised Criteria for Biological and Clinical Staging of Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2025-07-01

There were 838 BioFINDER-2 participants (mean age, 73.9 [SD, 7.3] years; 431 women [51%]; 407 men [49%]) and 380 ADNI participants (average age, 72.9 [SD, 7.0] years; 194 women [51%]; 186 mean [49%]) included. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 838 Evidence: moderate

In the cohort analyses, 891 incident dementia cases were identified over 166,762 person-years. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 207,981 Evidence: moderate

Microglia modulate Aβ-dependent astrocyte reactivity in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Nature Neuroscience 2025-11-06

Experimental evidence suggests that activated microglia induce astrocyte reactivity in neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 352 Evidence: moderate

In the UGOT cohort, the optimal cutoff improved diagnostic accuracy compared with the standard single cutoff, particularly in CKD and anemia (CKD: from 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72; to 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89; anemia: from 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.84; to 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90), with consistent findings in the Roche cohort. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,571 Evidence: moderate

Temporal Dynamics and Biological Variability of Alzheimer Biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2025-02-17

Among the plasma biomarkers, phosphorylated tau (p-tau) 217 exhibited the highest concordance rate with Aβ (2326 of 2571 [90.5%]) and tau (100 of 120 [83.3%]) PET. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,611 Evidence: moderate

Higher levels of P-tau181 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI: 1.17-1.51]), NfL (HR = 1.19 [95% CI: 1.03-1.36]), and GFAP (HR = 1.36 [95% CI: 1.22-1.52]), and a lower Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio (HR = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.68-0.95]) were associated with an increased risk of progressing to clinically-diagnosed DAT. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,007 Evidence: moderate

A total of 807 K-ROAD participants (median age 72.0 years, 58.7% female) and 230 ADNI participants (median age 70.9 years, 49.1% female) were analyzed. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 807 Evidence: moderate

Reference proteins to improve Core 1 and Core 2 Alzheimer’s disease CSF and plasma biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Brain 2025-10-03

Using the Swedish BioFINDER-2 cohort [n = 1702, 50.7% male, mean (standard deviation) age 68.4 (12.2) years], we compared the associations between tau/Aβ-PET load and fluid biomarkers alone versus biomarkers in a ratio with a reference protein (Aβ40 or np-tau) in univariate linear regression models. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,702 Evidence: moderate

Repeated plasma p‐tau217 measurements to monitor clinical progression heterogeneity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-05-01

Three progression clusters emerged in both cohorts: stable cognition, slow decline, and rapid decline-each including cases initially classified as CN or MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 186 Evidence: moderate

Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy and Downstream Alzheimer Disease Plasma Biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA network open 2025-05-01

Lobar CMB counts and the presence of CAA were associated with downstream AD plasma biomarkers, including p-tau217 (β = 0.12 [95% CI, 0.05-0.18] and 0.29 [95% CI, 0.12-0.47], respectively), GFAP (β = 0.07 [95% CI, 0.03-0.12] and 0.20 [95% CI, 0.09-0.31], respectively), and NfL (β = 0.07 [95% CI, 0.03-0.11] and 0.16 [95% CI, 0.06-0.25], respectively) with and without the mediation of Aβ uptake on PET (indirect effect: lobar CMBs-p-tau217, 59.8% [β = 0.07 (95% CI, 0.03-0.11)]; lobar CMBs-GFAP, 49.3% [β = 0.04 (95% CI, 0.01-0.06)]; lobar CMBs-NfL, 20.9% [β = 0.01 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03)]; CAA-p-tau217, 50.9% [β = 0.15 (95% CI, 0.06-0.24)]; CAA-GFAP, 39.2% [β = 0.08 (95% CI, 0.03-0.13)]; CAA-NfL, 19.2% [β = 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01-0.05)]). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,708 Evidence: moderate

The aim of this study was to evaluate longitudinal associations of multimodal core 1 AD biomarkers with cognition in a cognitively unimpaired (CU) population at increased risk of AD dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 350 Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau212 might have utility for theragnostics, monitoring therapy efficacy, and as a target engagement biomarker in clinical trials both in sporadic and DSAD. 1 key finding →

Participants: 245 Evidence: low

Blood-Based Analysis of Different Tau Variants in Patients With Multiple Traumatic Injuries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA network open 2026-02-02

With blood-based phosphorylated tau biomarkers soon to be used for diagnosis of Alzheimer disease, analyzing tau levels in other conditions could enhance biomarker interpretability. 4 key findings →

Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate

We used an untargeted mass spectrometric approach, tandem mass tag proteomics, for the identification of proteomic signatures in genetic frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 238 Evidence: low

These results revealed a universal applicability of the "A/T/N" framework in a Chinese population and established an optimal diagnostic model consisting of cost-effective and non-invasive approaches for diagnosing AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 411 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