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.

ESO Guideline on covert cerebral small vessel disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. European stroke journal 2021-05-11

'Covert' cerebral small vessel disease (ccSVD) is common on neuroimaging in persons without overt neurological manifestations, and increases the risk of future stroke, cognitive impairment, dependency, and death. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Facets of language performance in early‐onset and late‐onset Alzheimer's disease dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-09-01

Based on data from their first NACC visit with AD, there was considerable heterogeneity in language performance across people with EOAD and LOAD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,189 Evidence: low

The apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) allele is associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer disease and a decreased risk of glaucoma, but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The area under the time-dependent ROC curve (AUC) may be used to quantify the ability of a marker to predict the onset of a clinical outcome in the future. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

α-Synuclein species contained in PD-derived LB are pathogenic and have the capacity to initiate a PD-like pathological process, including intracellular and presynaptic accumulations of pathological α-synuclein in different brain areas and slowly progressive axon-initiated dopaminergic nigrostriatal neurodegeneration. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In vitro and animal studies have suggested that inoculation with herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) can lead to amyloid deposits, hyperphosphorylation of tau, and/or neuronal loss. 4 key findings →

Participants: 58 Evidence: low

Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) is a leading cause of stroke and dementia with no specific treatment, of which molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood. 2 key findings →

Participants: 40,000 Evidence: low

We performed whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing in 927 late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD) cases, 852 early-onset AD (EOAD) cases, and 1273 controls from France. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

VLAHE residents had fewer hospitalizations and shorter stays (10.5 vs 15.2 days, P = .0004) than comparable NH residents, particularly for acute care. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Among the more than 90 identified genetic risk loci for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias, the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene ɛ2/ɛ3/ɛ4 polymorphisms remain the longstanding benchmark for genetic disease risk with a consistently large effect across studies 1-10 . 5 key findings →

Design: case-control Evidence: high

The secreted peptide adropin is highly expressed in human brain tissues and correlates with RNA and proteomic risk indicators for dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 452 Evidence: low

The four IADL score could be incorporated into the screening procedure for dementia in elderly community dwellers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Latin America’s diverse genetic landscape provides a unique opportunity to study Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,162 Evidence: low

Plasma pTau217 levels serve as a scalable, non-invasive marker of AD-pathology across Lewy body diseases, PSP/CBS, and MCI/CU populations. 2 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

Ninety-seven men (incidence rate: 14.4/1,000) and 183 women (Incidence rate: 19.0/1,000) developed dementia during 8 years of follow-up. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

These data suggest that current treatment of late stage parkinsonism in the community remains insufficiently effective to alleviate disabling symptoms in many patients. 3 key findings →

Participants: 692 Evidence: low

The Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) undertook whole exome sequencing in 5,740 late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD) cases and 5,096 cognitively normal controls primarily of European ancestry (EA), among whom 218 cases and 177 controls were Caribbean Hispanic (CH). 2 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