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.

Disclosure of pleiotropic information did not increase anxiety or depression and may have decreased distress among persons at increased risk for 2 conditions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Default mode network connectivity in stable vs progressive mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2011-01-12

GOF indices were highest in normal controls, intermediate in MCI, and lowest in AD (p Conclusions fMRI connectivity indices distinguish patients with MCI who undergo cognitive decline and conversion to AD from those who remain stable over a 2- to 3-year follow-up period. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate

MarkVCID2 enrolled 1883 individuals age 73.4 ± 7.5 years, 65.0% female, 24.2% Hispanic, and 27.1% non-Hispanic Black. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,883 Evidence: moderate

Studies evaluating the diagnostic test accuracy of plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau) and amyloid beta (Aβ) tests (p-tau217, %p-tau217, p-tau181, p-tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40) compared to reference standard tests (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] AD biomarkers, amyloid positron emission tomography [PET], or neuropathology) in individuals with cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment or dementia) in specialized care settings were included. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: moderate

An individual's brainAGE is the difference between chronological age and age predicted from machine-learning models of brain-imaging data. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 869 Evidence: moderate

There is substantial neuropsychological decline in schizophrenia from the premorbid to the postonset period, but the extent and developmental progression of decline varies across mental functions. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,037 Evidence: moderate

Gene Dose of Apolipoprotein E Type 4 Allele and the Risk of Alzheimer's Disease in Late Onset Families

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Science 1993-08-13

The apolipoprotein E type 4 allele (APOE-epsilon 4) is genetically associated with the common late onset familial and sporadic forms of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Prevalence of dementia in the United States: the aging, demographics, and memory study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neuroepidemiology 2007-10-29

Dementia prevalence estimates from this first nationally representative population-based study of dementia in the USA to include subjects from all regions of the country can provide essential information for effective planning for the impending healthcare needs of the large and increasing number of individuals at risk for dementia as our population ages. 1 key finding →

Participants: 856 Evidence: low

Sex Differences in Mortality and Health Care Utilization After Dementia Diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-08-11

A total of 5 721 711 patients (3 302 579 female and 2 419 132 male) with incident dementia between 2014 and 2021 were included in the study. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 711 Evidence: moderate

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

TOMM40'523 variant and cognitive decline in older persons with APOE ε3/3 genotype

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2017-01-20

Our data reveal an association of APOE ε3/3- TOMM40 '523 haplotypes with cognitive decline in community-based older persons such that the S/S poly-T genotype is related to faster cognitive decline, primarily in the domains of episodic and semantic memory. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Each additional copy of the apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) allele is associated with a higher risk of Alzheimer's dementia, while the APOE2 allele is associated with a lower risk of Alzheimer's dementia, it is not yet known whether APOE2 homozygotes have a particularly low risk. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

MCI was prevalent in 24.7% of participants at baseline. 2 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 3,673 Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal analysis identified significant associations between the change in ether lipid species (including alkylphosphatidylcholine, alkenylphosphatidylcholine, lysoalkylphosphatidylcholine, and lysoalkenylphosphatidylcholine) and AD dementia conversion. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,393 Evidence: moderate

The Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study: study design and methods

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neuroepidemiology 2005-08-15

Linking the ADAMS dementia clinical assessment data to the wealth of available longitudinal HRS data on health, health care utilization, informal care, and economic resources and behavior, will provide a unique opportunity to study the onset of CIND and dementia in a nationally representative population-based sample, as well as the risk factors, prevalence, outcomes, and costs of CIND and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 856 Evidence: moderate

Participants were most likely to develop depression, apathy, or anxiety, and least likely to develop elation or disinhibition. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal 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 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