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.

A significant drug-placebo difference on the ADAS-Cog12 favoring GV-971 was present at each measurement time point, measurable at the week 4 visit and continuing throughout the trial. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 818 Evidence: high

Vascular cognitive impairment without dementia is very common among the aged and tends to progress to dementia, but there have been no proper large-scale intervention trials dedicated to it. 4 key findings →

Participants: 281 Evidence: high

Our findings showed significant associations between hearing and vision impairments and increased risks of all-cause and cause-specific dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 937,908 Evidence: moderate

The mean age was 70.9 years (standard deviation, 5.9), 57.2% were women, 40.6% were illiterate, and 88.3% were farmers. 2 key findings →

Participants: 5,765 Evidence: high

Given the inconsistent evidence regarding hearing aid use and reduced dementia risk, this study evaluates whether hearing aid use, particularly effective use, is associated with lower probable dementia risk among hearing-impaired older adults. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 61,089 Evidence: moderate

Whether the association of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) with dementia differs by sex remains unclear, and the role of socioeconomic, lifestyle, genetic, and medical factors in their association is unknown. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 502,649 Evidence: moderate

Overall age-adjusted and sex-adjusted prevalence was estimated to be 6·0% (95% CI 5·8-6·3) for dementia, 3·9% (3·8-4·1) for Alzheimer's disease, 1·6% (1·5-1·7) for vascular dementia, and 0·5% (0·5-0·6) for other dementias. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Per 1-m/s increase in ePWV was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 1.51(1.30-1.75) for dementia and 1.58(1.33-1.89) for Alzheimer's disease (AD), and with an MMSE score decline (adjusted β-coefficient = -0.36; 95% CI = -0.52 to -0.21). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,857 Evidence: moderate

A decreasing linear trend was observed between higher levels of curry consumption and cognitive decline (p = 0.037). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,920 Evidence: moderate

The estimated total annual costs of dementia in China increased from 0.9 billion United States dollars (US$) in 1990 to US$ 47.2 billion in 2010 and were predicted to reach US$ 69.0 billion in 2020 and US$ 114.2 billion in 2030. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Vestibular disorders were linked to higher risks of all‐cause dementia (HR 1.86 and 95% CI 1.04–3.30), Alzheimer's disease (AD, 2.36, and 1.01–5.51), and vascular dementia (VD, 3.35, and 1.48–7.59). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The results indicated that residence location, alcohol consumption, life satisfaction, depressive symptoms, and education level are key factors influencing the risk of MCI among older adults with functional disability. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Variants in the gene encoding the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) are known to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer disease and Parkinson's disease (PD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) was a newly identified receptor expressed on microglia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Responders (R) and Non-Responders (NR) to lymphatic-venous anastomosis (LVA) surgery for relief of cognitive impairment show significant difference in their p-tau181/Aβ42 ratios via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) of their cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). 3 key findings →

Participants: 43 Evidence: moderate

We aimed to determine whether genetically determined CRP was associated with hundreds of human phenotypes to guide anti-inflammatory interventions. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The ER protein CANX (calnexin)-mediated autophagy protects against alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Autophagy 2025-01-15

Although the relationship between macroautophagy/autophagy and Alzheimer disease (AD) is widely studied, the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood, especially the regulatory role of the initiation signaling of autophagy on AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The MoCA score and the SCWT duration of the real group improved significantly compared with that of the sham group. 5 key findings →

Participants: 18 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