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.

Updated safety results from phase 3 lecanemab study in early Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2024-05-10

Overall, 1795 participants from Core and 1612 participants with at least one dose of lecanemab (Core + OLE) were included. 1 key finding →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: high

Among 16 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 32.6 (4.4) years; 9 participants were women, and 7 were men. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: high

This study showed that flutemetamol injection labeled with radioactive fluorine 18 was safe and had high sensitivity and specificity in an end-of-life population. 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 176 Evidence: low

TDP-43 loss and ALS-risk SNPs drive mis-splicing and depletion of UNC13A

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Nature 2022-02-23

Variants of UNC13A, a critical gene for synapse function, increase the risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia 1-3 , two related neurodegenerative diseases defined by mislocalization of the RNA-binding protein TDP-43 4,5 . 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Longitudinal changes in cognition and behavior in asymptomatic carriers of the APOE e4 allele

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2004-06-01

Memory declined in APOE e4 carriers before the symptomatic presentation of MCI in a cohort whose mean age was 60 years over a median period of 33 months. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 212 Evidence: moderate

TDP-43 pathology disrupts nuclear pore complexes and nucleocytoplasmic transport in ALS/FTD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 2018-01-08

The cytoplasmic mislocalization and aggregation of TAR DNA-binding protein-43 (TDP-43) is a common histopathological hallmark of the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia disease spectrum (ALS/FTD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The two current major staging systems in use for Lewy body disorders fail to classify up to 50% of subjects. 3 key findings →

Participants: 417 Evidence: low

Once-weekly 5-mg/d donepezil TDS demonstrated minimal skin irritation under conditions of use of 3 consecutive weekly patch applications to the same skin site and minimal sensitization potential. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 198 Evidence: high

A total of 325 participants enrolled and received study drug. 5 key findings →

Participants: 320 Evidence: high

Association of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2022-06-06

In cognitively unimpaired (CU) adults at baseline, the risk for progression to dementia increased for every decile increase in the ADI state ranking (hazard ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval (1.01-1.11), P = .01). 5 key findings →

Participants: 4,699 Evidence: low

Additional study of mechanisms of action and methods for titrating stimulation parameters will be needed to determine if DBS has potential as an AD treatment. 2 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 42 Evidence: high

Of 104 metabolites studied, glycodeoxycholic acid (GDCA) surpassed the false discovery rate and was associated the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale version 13 (ADAS-Cog13) score (β = 0.12, 95 % CI = 0.05-0.20, p = 0.001) and cognitive impairment determined by mini-mental status exam (MMSE) (OR = 2.11, 95 % CI = 1.41-3.15, p < 0.001). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 578 Evidence: moderate

The identification of biomarkers predicting the burden of brain alpha-synuclein (α-syn) pathology in vivo represents a research priority in Lewy body disease (LBD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Physical and Cognitive Activities and Trajectories of AD Neuroimaging Biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2025-12-02

= 0.038) over time. Physical activity was associated with less synaptic dysfunction and cognitive activity with less synaptic dysfunction and lower amyloid burden over time, albeit effect sizes were small. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

A major feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the loss of noradrenergic locus coeruleus (LC) projection neurons that mediate attention, memory, and arousal. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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