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.

The Alzheimer Disease Genetics Consortium (ADGC) performed a genome-wide association study of late-onset Alzheimer disease using a three-stage design consisting of a discovery stage (stage 1) and two replication stages (stages 2 and 3). 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Using cross-population GWAS meta-analyses, we identify novel LOAD susceptibility loci in/near LRRC4C and LHX5-AS1, both with known roles in neuronal development, as well as several novel population-unique loci. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 409,589 Evidence: high

Midlife vascular risk factors are associated with increased risk of dementia in black and white ARIC Study participants. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 744 Evidence: moderate

Fifty-one AD patients enrolled, mean age 73.5. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

The panel cautions users of this guideline that there is significant variability in diagnostic test accuracy and many commercially available BBM tests do not meet these thresholds, especially using a single cutoff. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic-review Evidence: high

We found that distinct sphingolipid species including sphingomyelin (SM) with acyl residue sums C16:0, C18:1, and C16:1 (SM C16:0, SM C18:1, SM C16:1) and hydroxysphingomyelin with acyl residue sum C14:1 (SM (OH) C14:1) were consistently associated with severity of AD pathology at autopsy and AD progression across prodromal and preclinical stages. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 44 Evidence: moderate

The study cohort included 568 patients (289 [50.9%] men; mean [SD] age, 70.5 [16.1] years) who died in the hospital or were discharged to hospice. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 568 Evidence: moderate

Of 1018 study patients enrolled, 508 were randomly assigned to rivastigmine and 510 to placebo; 17.3% of patients on rivastigmine and 21.4% on placebo progressed to AD (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.64-1.12]; p=0.225). 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Analysis confirmed the association of APOE with earlier AAO (P = 3.3 × 10(-96)), with associations in CR1 (rs6701713, P = 7.2 × 10(-4)), BIN1 (rs7561528, P = 4.8 × 10(-4)), and PICALM (rs561655, P = 2.2 × 10(-3)) reaching statistical significance (P Conclusions and relevance We confirmed an association of APOE (OMIM 107741) variants with AAO among affected participants with LOAD and observed novel associations of CR1 (OMIM 120620), BIN1 (OMIM 601248), and PICALM (OMIM 603025) with AAO. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 9,162 Evidence: high

Low-Dose Lithium for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2026-04-01

Among 80 participants (mean [SD] age, lithium: 72.93 [8.77] years; placebo: 71.22 [6.47] years; 56% female), none of the 6 coprimary outcomes met the prespecified significance threshold. 2 key findings →

Participants: 170 Evidence: high

In this study, risk of dementia significantly increased after ischemic stroke, independent of vascular risk factors. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 379 Evidence: moderate

The APOE-ε4 allele has long been associated with increased risks of Alzheimer's disease and mortality, but the effect of the less prevalent APOE-ε2 allele on diseases in the elderly and survival remains elusive. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 38,537 Evidence: moderate

High blood pressure increases the risks of stroke, dementia, and neurocognitive dysfunction. 2 key findings →

Participants: 124 Evidence: high

DNA methylation algorithms are increasingly used to estimate biological aging; however, how these proposed measures of whole-organism biological aging relate to aging in the brain is not known. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 649 Evidence: moderate

PurposeTelephone disclosure of genetic test results can improve access to services. 4 key findings →

Participants: 257 Evidence: high

Increasing evidence suggests an important role of liver function in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,581 Evidence: moderate

Serum triglycerides in Alzheimer disease: Relation to neuroimaging and CSF biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Neurology 2020-05-01

This study shows that PUTG component scores were significantly associated with diagnostic group and AD biomarkers, a finding that was more pronounced in APOE ε4 carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 689 Evidence: moderate

The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) has developed brief, comprehensive, and reliable batteries of clinical and neuropsychological tests for assessment of patients with the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 350 Evidence: moderate

We tested whether dysregulation of cholesterol catabolism, through its conversion to primary bile acids (BAs), was associated with dementia pathogenesis. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 141 Evidence: moderate

Association Between Blood Pressure and Later-Life Cognition Among Black and White Individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2020-07-01

Among 34 349 participants, 19 378 individuals who were free of stroke and dementia and had longitudinal BP, cognitive, and covariate data were included in the analysis. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 349 Evidence: moderate

Among older Medicare beneficiaries, incident AF is common and has remained relatively stable for more than a decade. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 433,123 Evidence: moderate

This pilot randomized clinical trial demonstrated the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of LMH-4-DCP in reducing caregiver grief, with improvements in caregiver-care recipient relationship quality. 5 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 68 Evidence: preliminary

Apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 is the single most important genetic risk factor for cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease (AD), while lifestyle factors such as smoking, drinking, diet, and physical activity also have impact on cognition. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

↑ 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