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.

Two Phase 3 Trials of Gantenerumab in Early Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 81 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2023-11-01

Among persons with early Alzheimer's disease, the use of gantenerumab led to a lower amyloid plaque burden than placebo at 116 weeks but was not associated with slower clinical decline. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 980 Evidence: low

Volumetric MRI vs clinical predictors of Alzheimer disease in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Neurology 2008-01-01

In moderate stages of amnestic mild cognitive impairment, common cognitive tests provide better predictive accuracy than measures of whole brain, ventricular, entorhinal cortex, or hippocampal volumes for assessing progression to Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 129 Evidence: high

AI-based differential diagnosis of dementia etiologies on multimodal data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Nature medicine 2024-07-04

Differential diagnosis of dementia remains a challenge in neurology due to symptom overlap across etiologies, yet it is crucial for formulating early, personalized management strategies. 1 key finding →

Participants: 51,269 Evidence: low

Group differences were seen in skin and subcutaneous tissue concerns (P=.05), including 3 possible drug rashes and 3 reports of hair color change in the treatment groups. 2 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that is characterized by amyloid-beta (Aβ) accumulation and neuroinflammation. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 21 Evidence: high

Effect of AZD0530 on Cerebral Metabolic Decline in Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2019-10-01

Statistically significant effects of AZD0530 treatment were not found on relative CMRgl reduction in an Alzheimer disease-associated region of interest or on secondary clinical or biomarker measures. 3 key findings →

Participants: 159 Evidence: high

Cognitive decline is a debilitating manifestation of disease progression in Parkinson's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,200 Evidence: moderate

Partial volume corrected and uncorrected results were generally in agreement; however, the correlation between (11)C-PBR28 and (11)C-Pittsburgh Compound B binding was seen only after partial volume correction. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

A hexanucleotide repeat expansion in C9ORF72 is the cause of chromosome 9p21-linked ALS-FTD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neuron 2011-09-21

The chromosome 9p21 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-frontotemporal dementia (ALS-FTD) locus contains one of the last major unidentified autosomal-dominant genes underlying these common neurodegenerative diseases. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Oral benfotiamine is safe and potentially efficacious in improving cognitive outcomes among persons with MCI and mild AD. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: low

ADCS Prevention Instrument Project: overview and initial results

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2006-10-01

This initial report describes the ongoing 4-year longitudinal study and provides baseline results, which confirm the feasibility of obtaining home-based clinical information via mail or telephone. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 644 Evidence: high

Exome sequencing reveals VCP mutations as a cause of familial ALS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neuron 2010-12-01

Using exome sequencing, we identified a p.R191Q amino acid change in the valosin-containing protein (VCP) gene in an Italian family with autosomal dominantly inherited amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

Early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is critical yet challenging, particularly in younger individuals. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 120 Evidence: moderate

APOE4 is the greatest risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD) and synergistic effects with amyloid-β peptide (Aβ) suggest interactions among apoE isoforms and different forms of Aβ accumulation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Second-generation anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies are emerging as a viable therapeutic option for individuals with prodromal and mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The APOE-ε4 allele correlates with increased risk of Alzheimer disease (AD) and increased parenchymal amyloid plaques. 3 key findings →

Participants: 22 Evidence: low

Balancing Burdens and Benefits: Ethical Issues of Off‐Label Prescription Pharmaceutical Use

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. PM&R 2013-10-01

He has even given a threshold outlining when the practice of medicine ends versus when the practice of unethical, non–institutional review board approved research begins. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Of 43 individuals enrolled, 14 were women (33%); age (mean ± SD) was 73 ± 8.5 years. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 43 Evidence: high

There were no overall differences between patients with breast cancer and controls before systemic treatment, but there may be pretreatment cognitive impairment within subgroups of patient cases with greater tumor or comorbidity burden. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Even after accounting for established individual‐level demographic, socioeconomic, health, and genetic risk factors for cognitive decline, greater neighborhood disadvantage is associated with an accelerated rate of annualized decline in delayed recall performance across mid to late life in a community sample. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,554 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