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.

Mutations in the human presenilin genes (PSEN1 and PSEN2) are associated with early onset familial Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This article synthesizes findings, from the Autism/Dementia Work Group of the 2nd International Summit on Intellectual Disabilities and Dementia, on the nature of autism/autism spectrum disorder and later-age neuropathologies, particularly dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an early stage of non-age-related cognitive decline with an increased risk of progressing to dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Two logic models were developed to identify the determinants of risk for dementia and how these could be targeted by the program. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A major hurdle in Alzheimer disease research is the failure of mouse models to capture complexities of the human brain that contributes to repeated clinical trial failure. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Multimodal Detection of Agitation in People With Dementia in Clinical Settings: Observational Pilot Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. JMIR Aging 2025-07-15

The Extra Trees model achieved up to 99% accuracy for personalized wristband data, while the multilayer perceptron model performed best in general models with 98% accuracy. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

TDP-43 and FUS are RNA-binding proteins involved in the regulation of diverse RNA-processing events and have been strongly implicated in neurodegenerative diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The project is expected to generate evidence on the effectiveness, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of multidomain interventions implemented across diverse real-world settings, including community, hospital, and long-term care. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) is common in older persons with Down syndrome (DS). 1 key finding →

Participants: 55 Evidence: low

Accurate diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with right anterior temporal lobe (RATL) predominance remains challenging due to lack of clinical characterization, and standardized terminology. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

CD33 and clusterin interact biophysically and genetically to modulate Alzheimer risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Nature Communications 2026-07-17

We report the results of structural, functional and genetic studies on the CD33 sialic acid- binding receptor that reveal how non-coding variants in CD33 alter risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Making the Case for the Accelerated Withdrawal of Aducanumab

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2022-01-01

Food and Drug Administration-s (FDA) approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm® in the US) as a treatment for mild cognitive impairment of the Alzheimer type and Alzheimer-s disease has raised such major concerns about efficacy, safety, FDA processes, and regulatory capture that Biogen-s license to market this biologic should be immediately withdrawn. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Disparities in Access to Deep Brain Stimulation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery 2025-10-09

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a well-established treatment for several neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions, including movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, and dystonia, as well as Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome, epilepsy, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The first search utilized the following MeSH terms and keywords: ‘Plasma Exchange’, ‘Plasmapheresis’, ‘Therapeutic plasma exchange’, ‘Apheresis’, ‘Aβ’, ‘p-tau’, ‘Total-tau’, ‘Alzheimer's disease’, ‘Cognitive dysfunction’, ‘neurodegenerative diseases’, ‘centrifugation’, ‘membranous’, and ‘filtration’ in the Title/Abstract, yielding 146 results. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The activities of red blood cell enzymes that scavenge the superoxide radical and hydrogen peroxide were measured in severely to profoundly retarded adult Down syndrome (DS) patients with and without manifestations of Alzheimer disease (AD), and control individuals matched for sex, age, and time of blood sampling. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Fluid biomarkers improve the diagnostic accuracy in dementia and provide an objective measure potentially useful as a therapeutic response in clinical trials. 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 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    Where this research is being discussed: events