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.

Comparing clinical stages, CSF PDGFRβ levels were increased at the MCI stage (Cohen's d = 0.55 [CI 95% 0.066, 1.0], P = 0.025) compared with NC. 3 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Benefits of fatty fish on dementia risk are stronger for those without APOE epsilon4

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurology 2005-11-01

In the Cardiovascular Health Cognition Study, consumption of fatty fish was associated with a reduced risk of dementia and Alzheimer disease for those without the APOE epsilon4 allele. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the amyloidogenic pathway associated with Alzheimer disease (AD), the amyloid precursor protein (APP) is cleaved by β-secretase to generate a 99-aa C-terminal fragment (C99) that is then cleaved by γ-secretase to generate the β-amyloid (Aβ) found in senile plaques. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Factors associated with resistance to dementia despite high Alzheimer disease pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurology 2009-01-01

Larger brain and hippocampal volumes were associated with preserved cognitive function during life despite a high burden of Alzheimer disease (AD) pathologic lesions at death. 3 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: low

High white matter grade (WMG) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a risk factor for dementia, stroke and disability. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,245 Evidence: low

APOE and Trem2 are major genetic risk factors for Alzheimer's disease (AD), but how they affect microglia response to Aβ remains unclear. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Molecular imaging with Pittsburgh Compound B confirmed at autopsy: a case report

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2007-03-01

Patient A 76-year-old man with a clinical diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies underwent fluorodeoxyglucose (18)F and PiB positron emission tomographic brain scans. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Brain deposition of transactive response DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) is a feature of neurodegenerative syndromes. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,058 Evidence: moderate

The cardiovascular health study: Design and rationale

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Annals of Epidemiology 1991-02-01

The Cardiovascular Health Study is a population-based, longitudinal study designed to evaluate factors related to the onset, course, and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke in adults aged 65 years and older. 4 key findings →

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, remains challenging to understand and treat despite decades of research and clinical investigation. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Clinical, cognitive, and CSF markers consistent with AD may precede detection of cerebral amyloid beta using amyloid imaging agents such as PiB that primarily label fibrillar amyloid beta plaques. 2 key findings →

Design: case report Evidence: low

The dementia caregiving literature is reviewed with the goals of (a) assessing the prevalence and magnitude of psychiatric and physical morbidity effects among caregivers, (b) identifying individual and contextual correlates of reported health effects and their underlying causes, and (c) examining the policy relevance of observed findings. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

By 12 months after discharge, of those discharged with new or additional ADL disability, 41.3% died, 28.6% were alive but had not recovered to baseline function, and 30.1% were at baseline function. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Demented individuals were less likely than their nondemented counterparts to be taking lipid-lowering drugs. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Cognitive impairment is highly prevalent among individuals with late-life depression (LLD) and tends to persist even after successful treatment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum, the prodromal state of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) precedes AD dementia and identifying MCI individuals at risk of progression is important for clinical management. 4 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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