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.

Across the brain, people with Down syndrome had greater concentrations of tau for a given level of amyloid compared with people with autosomal-dominant Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 137 Evidence: moderate

The sample included 3 329 977 beneficiaries (2 126 290 [63.9%] female, 33 887 [1.0%] Asian, 354 771 [10.7%] Black, 61 515 [1.8%] Hispanic, 2 831 391 [85.0%] White, and 891 815 [26.8%] dual eligible for Medicaid). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

To develop a new method for measuring Alzheimer's disease (AD)-specific similarity of cortical atrophy patterns at the individual-level, we employed an individual-level machine learning algorithm. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 473 Evidence: moderate

These findings suggest that DPP-4i use is associated with low amyloid burden and favorable long-term cognitive outcome in diabetic patients with ADCI. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate

Over 7,430,253 person-years of follow-up, 11,345 dementia cases occurred (10,863 AD and 2,159 VaD). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 296,001 Evidence: moderate

Of the total, 908 (37.0%) participants had cSVD on MRI reading at baseline. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,454 Evidence: moderate

In the present study, our automated classifier successfully classified FTD clinical subtypes with good to excellent accuracy. 1 key finding →

Participants: 143 Evidence: low

Early identification of dementia at the stage of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is crucial for timely diagnosis and intervention of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 174 Evidence: low

In this article, the authors aim to maximally utilize multimodality neuroimaging and genetic data for identifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its prodromal status, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), from normal aging subjects. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We found that both state of birth and state of residence account for a modest portion of ADRD mortality variation. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

15 years of longitudinal genetic, clinical, cognitive, imaging, and biochemical measures in DIAN

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. npj Dementia 2026-02-16

The Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Observational Study (DIAN Obs) is a longitudinal, global cohort study investigating brain aging and autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease (ADAD), a rare monogenic form of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

MAFLD was associated with an increased risk of WMH over 4.1 years in middle‐aged adults. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,155 Evidence: moderate

Clinical trials of anti-amyloid-β (Aβ) monoclonal antibodies in Alzheimer disease (AD) infer target engagement from Aβ positron emission tomography (PET) and/or fluid biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42/40. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Fusing multi-modality data is crucial for accurate identification of brain disorder as different modalities can provide complementary perspectives of complex neurodegenerative disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Atrophy patterns in cerebral amyloid angiopathy with and without cortical superficial siderosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Neurology 2018-04-20

Our findings imply that the current version of the Boston criteria may not be sufficient enough to remove non-CAA cases from a cognitively impaired population, especially in the absence of cSS. 4 key findings →

Participants: 27 Evidence: low

Predictive performance was comparable across algorithms, with R² ranging from 0.201 to 0.361, highest in the MCI_All dataset. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 4,958 Evidence: moderate

The study included 2,284,175 FFS Medicare beneficiaries with an ADRD diagnosis in 2017. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,284,175 Evidence: low

Dopamine transporter (DAT) imaging and electroencephalography (EEG) are recommended biomarkers for diagnosing dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). 4 key findings →

Participants: 120 Evidence: low

• Caregiver training helps dementia caregivers understand the disease and learn about caregiving skills. • Overall, about one in twelve informal dementia caregivers had taken any caregiving training. • Factors associated with the receipt of training included caregivers’ race, relationship, working status, and payer status, and care recipients’ level of assistance. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,606 Evidence: low

The results of the present study suggest that increased 18 F-THK5351 uptake might be a useful predictor of poor prognosis among Aβ- aMCI patients, which might be associated with increased neuroinflammation (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02656498). 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 25 Evidence: low

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) promotes adipogenesis and diet-induced obesity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Diabetes 2014-08-11

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is known to be involved in the anti-inflammatory response and osteoclast development. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) diagnosis is confirmed using a medley of modalities, such as the detection of amyloid-β (Aβ) neuritic plaques and neurofibrillary tangles with positron electron tomography (PET) or the appraisal of irregularities in cognitive function with examinations. 3 key findings →

Participants: 53 Evidence: low

Attention-Guided Hybrid Network for Dementia Diagnosis With Structural MR Images

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. IEEE transactions on cybernetics 2022-04-05

Deep-learning methods (especially convolutional neural networks) using structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) data have been successfully applied to computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its prodromal stage [i.e., mild cognitive impairment (MCI)]. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the comprehensive dementia prevention application 'MELI' in enhancing cognitive function and alleviating depressive symptoms among older adults.A total of 50 participants aged 60 and older, enrolled in a dementia prevention program operated in Namdong-gu, Incheon, South Korea, were randomly assigned to either an experimental or a control group, with 25 participants in each. 1 key finding →

Participants: 50 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