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.

Evidence suggests that a high concentration of C-reactive protein (CRP) is a cardiovascular risk factor and an important correlate of cognitive disorders and depression. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Early Statin Use and the Progression of Alzheimer Disease: A Total Population-Based Case-Control Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Medicine 2015-11-01

The protective effect of statin on Alzheimer disease (AD) is still controversial, probably due to the debate about when to start the use of statin and the lack of any large-scale randomized evidence that actually supports the hypothesis. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The combination of neuropsychological tests and P300 measurements proved useful in improving reliability and increasing sensitivity to early cognitive decline or disease progression in AD patients. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The three cognitive assessment tools were valid for detecting subjects with MCI or dementia according to ROC analysis. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,090 Evidence: low

As they mix together, they become purple.2 According to a few previous reports, PUBS often occurred in elderly women who are bedridden, chronically catheterized, and constipated.3 In addition, PUBS was found in alkaline urine and with higher bacterial counts.3,4 Because of lack of significant patient numbers, the clinical background, underlining diseases, urinanalysis, and incidence of PUBS have not been well documented. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Significant improvements were observed after 1 month of VR intervention in both caregiver burden (Z=-3.095, P=.002, r=0.34) and neuropsychiatric symptoms (Z=-2.929, P=.003, r=0.32). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 82 Evidence: moderate

Caregivers of patients with BPSD reported significantly greater psychological distress, burden, and poorer sleep quality than those caring for patients without BPSD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 280 Evidence: low

Integrating EEG features with plasma biomarkers improves prediction of cognitive function from mild cognitive impairment to moderate dementia, pending external validation. 1 key finding →

Participants: 75 Evidence: low

Participant experiences and perceptions formed three themes: (1) aging accelerates PCDS progression, (2) PCDS threatening daily life, and (3) adapting to changes. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), particularly semaglutide, have demonstrated substantial efficacy for glycemic control and weight management and are increasingly prescribed across diverse populations. 4 key findings →

Design: narrative review 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