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.

A total of 51 patients with AD, age (median: 73 years) and 53 cognitively normal subjects (median age: 69) were included. 5 key findings →

Participants: 51 Evidence: low

In 2021, the age-standardised rates for ADOD were 694.01 (95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]: 602.88 to 794.08) for prevalence, 119.76 (95% UI: 104.96 to 135.89) for incidence, and 481.70 (95% UI: 228.79 to 1,023.96) for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Over 78 million people will suffer from dementia by 2030, emphasizing the need for early identification of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at risk, and personalized clinical evaluation steps to diagnose potentially reversible causes. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The authors extended previous studies of the stage-specific prevalence of behavioral pathology to members of ethnic minority groups. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Of the 8688 individuals in the Medicare Advantage population with a dementia diagnosis, 1061 (12.2%) received an antipsychotic medication. 4 key findings →

Participants: 8,688 Evidence: low

Identity-by-descent (IBD) mapping provides complementary signals to genome-wide association studies (GWASs) when multiple causal haplotypes or variants are present but not directly tested. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We found notable differences in socio‐demographic and clinical characteristics, and utilization patterns in the year prior to death between decedents with dementia who were hospitalized in the last 30 days of life vs. those who were not. 4 key findings →

Participants: 6,299 Evidence: moderate

This study was a retrospective analysis of administrative data (20% sample) of 15 996 Medicare Part D enrollees who received a DES in 2006 to 2007. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Exercise, Physical Activity and Breast Cancer: The Role of Tumor-Associated Macrophages

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Exercise immunology review 2012-01-01

Regular exercise and physical activity provide many health benefits and are encouraged by medical professionals for the primary prevention of and adjuvant treatment of breast cancer Current consensus in the discipline of exercise oncology is that both regular physical activity and exercise training exert some protective effect against breast cancer risk, and may reduce morbidity in some advanced cases. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dementia disproportionately affects Hispanic/Latino caregivers, and while some interventions exist, their consideration of intersectional factors remains unclear. 1 key finding →

Participants: 41 Evidence: low

The AD PRS was associated with AD in the ADSP sample, with odds ratios per standard deviation ranging from 1.14 to 1.52 across ancestry groups and robust validation in independent cohorts (Figure 1). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Spending at end of life (EOL) accounts for a large and growing share of healthcare expenditures in the US, and often reflects aggressive care with questionable value for dying patients. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Compared to those in rural areas, participants who resided in urban areas during young adulthood had lower late midlife ADI (β = -0.85, p < .05), and better executive function (β = 0.19), processing speed (β = 0.24), and verbal fluency (β = 0.30) (ps < .05) in older adulthood. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In 2023, US life expectancy reached 78.5 years and healthy life expectancy 64.5 years, both still below prepandemic 2019 levels, with a persistent 13-14-year gap between life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

• Understudied Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander populations in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia. • Risk and resiliency factors in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia for American Samoa adults. • Using the Kimberley Indigenous Cognitive Assessment tool to determine ADRD potentially modifiable risk and protective factors. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

BackgroundNeighborhood disadvantage has been associated with reduced cognitive reserve, increased risk for cognitive impairment, and greater Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuropathology, with particularly pronounced effects among Black and Hispanic/Latino older adults. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent reports suggest that cultivated nonneuronal cells from individuals with Alzheimer disease (AD) and other specific hereditary neurodegenerative disorders show hypersensitivity to DNA-damaging agents such as x-rays and radiomimetic chemicals. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Abnormalities in core AD biomarkers precede inflammatory and glial markers in CSF in Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer’s Disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-04-01

Increasing evidence suggests that accurate prediction of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) symptom onset requires more than amyloid- and tau-centric biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42/40, total tau and p-tau181 and plasma p-tau217. 4 key findings →

Participants: 484 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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