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.

Older people with SMC but no objective complaints are twice as likely to develop dementia as individuals without SMC. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 15,009 Evidence: high

Pre- and postoperative orthogeriatric care given in an acute geriatric ward was not effective in reducing delirium or long-term cognitive impairment in patients with hip fracture. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 329 Evidence: high

Asundexian for Secondary Stroke Prevention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2026-04-15

Among 12,327 patients who underwent randomization (6162 to the asundexian group and 6165 to the placebo group), the incidence of ischemic stroke was lower in the asundexian group than in the placebo group (6.2% vs. 8.4%; cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.84; P<0.001). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 12,327 Evidence: low

Of 6 952 440 vaccinated patients in the derivation cohort, 5 150 310 (74.1%) had two vaccine doses. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This large cohort of 85 year olds showed good levels of both self rated health and functional ability despite significant levels of disease and impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 853 Evidence: moderate

Overall, 318 patients with AD completed BPST with an improvement of 5.6 points on the total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI; mean [SD], 63.3 [16.0] to 57.7 [18.4], t = 4.8, df = 317, p 95% of patients. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 318 Evidence: high

Decreases in depression scores at 13 weeks did not differ between 111 controls and 107 participants allocated to receive sertraline (mean difference 1·17, 95% CI -0·23 to 2·58; p=0·10) or mirtazapine (0·01, -1·37 to 1·38; p=0·99), or between participants in the mirtazapine and sertraline groups (1·16, -0·25 to 2·57; p=0·11); these findings persisted to 39 weeks. 3 key findings →

Participants: 107 Evidence: low

Distinct associations between different traffic noise exposures and incident dementia subtypes were found in this large UK prospective cohort study. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 502,416 Evidence: moderate

Although altered lipid metabolism has been extensively implicated in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD) through cell biological, epidemiological, and genetic studies, the molecular mechanisms linking cholesterol and AD pathology are still not well understood and contradictory results have been reported. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 10,578 Evidence: moderate

A polygenic score (PGS) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) was derived recently from data on genome-wide significant loci in European ancestry populations. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Evidence: high

Entorhinal cortex thickness predicts cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2013-01-01

Biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) based on non-invasive methods are highly desirable for diagnosis, disease progression, and monitoring therapeutics. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

A 10-15% ACR only appears to hold true in clinical samples monitored over a short observation period. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The viral-inflammatory hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease offers a new paradigm, yet interventions like antivirals and vaccination present a paradox that challenge therapeutic development. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

An integrated TCD-NIRS protocol was feasible in these patient groups to measure NVC, but less-so in delirium. 3 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 32 Evidence: low

Systemic disadvantages facing UK ethnic elders within dementia healthcare

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. BJPsych Advances 2025-07-02

Reduced access to dementia healthcare services by elders from ethnic minority backgrounds is often a manifestation of underlying systemic disadvantages within dementia assessment and treatment services. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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