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.

Recent advances in neuroimaging of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-09-01

This review covers recent advances (2023-2024) in neuroimaging research into the pathophysiology, progression, and treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Among 90 participants included in the analyses, 34 had moderate to severe WMH. 5 key findings →

Participants: 154 Evidence: high

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that specific subtypes of age-related cataract (ARC) and Alzheimer disease (AD) are related etiologically. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Elevated cerebrospinal fluid total tau in former professional athletes with multiple concussions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Neurology 2019-05-08

Concentrations of phosphorylated tau181, total tau (t-tau), and β-amyloid in the CSF were measured in 3 groups: 22 former professional athletes with multiple concussions (mean ± SD age 55.9 ± 12.2 years), 5 healthy controls (age 57.4 ± 5.2 years), and 12 participants (age 60.0 ± 6.6 years) diagnosed with Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) are at a high risk for developing Alzheimer disease (AD) after the age 40; however, low levels of intellectual functioning, coupled with impaired language ability, confound the detection of AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

A chronic and gradual increase in pulse pressure (PP) is associated with cognitive decline and dementia in older individuals, but the mechanisms remain ill-defined. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The ViT approach predicted dementia with 76.5% balanced accuracy, outperforming human-scored features (74.3%) and existing deep learning models (MiniVGG = 73.3%, MobileNetV2 = 72.3%, relevance factor variational autoencoder = 69.1%) on the TDRA dataset. 3 key findings →

Participants: 862 Evidence: low

Fatty acid differences, including docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6n-3) have been shown in the brains of Alzheimer's patients (AD) as compared with normal age-matched individuals. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The presenilin (PS) genes associated with Alzheimer disease encode polytopic transmembrane proteins which undergo physiologic endoproteolytic cleavage to generate stable NH2- and COOH-terminal fragments (NTF or CTF) which co-localize in intracellular membranes, but are tightly regulated in their stoichiometry and abundance. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A key pathological feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the formation and accumulation of amyloid fibers within the neurophil as senile plaques and in the walls of cerebral and meningeal blood vessels. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) is a chronic neurodegenerative disorder with complex pathophysiology that affects over 50 million people worldwide. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

With the increased use of technological supports in residential care homes, there is growing interest in the use of real-time location systems (RTLS) to enhance safety and streamline care. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Early isolated functional disruptions in salience/visual networks were present in asymptomatic carriers, along with anterior cingulate gray matter reductions. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Social inappropriateness in neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. International psychogeriatrics 2017-07-10

Through various manifestations, social inappropriateness is frequently the first clinical sign of a neurodegenerative process, especially in AD and bvFTD, years before noticeable impairment on classical neuropsychological assessment and brain atrophy on imaging. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Are hereditary hemochromatosis mutations involved in Alzheimer disease?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. American journal of medical genetics 2000-07-01

Mutations in the class I-like major histocompatibility complex gene called HFE are associated with hereditary hemochromatosis (HHC), a disorder of excessive iron uptake. 3 key findings →

Participants: 26 Evidence: low

The serine protease inhibitor alpha 1-antichymotrypsin (ACT) consistently colocalizes with amyloid deposits of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and may contribute to the generation of amyloid proteins and/or physically affect fibril assembly. 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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