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.

Global Prevalence of Young-Onset Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2021-09-01

A total of 95 unique studies were included in this systematic review, of which 74 with 2 760 379 unique patients were also included in 5-year age band meta-analyses. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 95 Evidence: high

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

We investigated the effects of matrix type and reagent batch changes on diagnostic performances and longitudinal trajectories of brain-derived tau (BD-tau). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate

MEDAS-R was positively associated with better MMSE performance (p = 0.043) and showed a borderline association with the MoCA (p = 0.051), but not with the ACE-R score (p = 0.356). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 75 Evidence: high

It remains a common yet underrecognised complication in older surgical patients, significantly influencing recovery, prolonging hospital stays and increasing healthcare costs and workload.1 Although traditionally peri-operative care has prioritised physical stabilisation, effectively addressing POD requires a holistic approach that also considers patients’ emotional and social well being.2 One well established strategy for managing delirium is the active involvement of family and caregivers. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Short-term nutritional supplements enable an improvement in Alzheimer patients' nutritional status, but it remains to be seen whether they will be sufficient to improve long-term nutritional status. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a year-long, home-based individual cognitive stimulation (iCS) program on cognitive performance, mood, functional independence, and quality of life (QoL) in older adults with mild Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 18 Evidence: high

Folates and aging: Role in mild cognitive impairment, dementia and depression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2015-05-02

In almost all tissues, including the brain, folates are required for one-carbon transfer reactions, which are essential for the synthesis of DNA and RNA nucleotides, the metabolism of amino acids and the occurrence of methylation reactions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Unmet PC needs were highly prevalent (78.2%). 4 key findings →

Participants: 359 Evidence: low

The statistical analysis revealed that the survival time was significantly longer in females compared to males (p = 0.003). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 54 Evidence: moderate

A total of 414 caregivers participated. They exhibited normal intensity of depression, anxiety, and stress symptomatology. 5 key findings →

Participants: 414 Evidence: low

Assistive technologies hold significant potential to enhance the quality of life for persons with dementia and their caregivers by addressing key concerns related to safety, independence, and social inclusion. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Twenty-four studies were identified and confirmed that patients with dementia frequently resort to the ED near the end of life, frequently more than once in their last year of life. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The three modifications had comparable performance when the number of deaths was large relative to the denominator and the age distribution was as in the standard population. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

A higher GPF was associated with better cognitive function in institutionalized older adults with dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Since its first description in 1906 by Dr. Alois Alzheimer, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has been the most common type of dementia. 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 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