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.

Brain clocks, which quantify discrepancies between brain age and chronological age, hold promise for understanding brain health and disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,306 Evidence: low

A fully automated computational approach included classical statistical methods, support vector machine procedures, and machine learning techniques (random forest and sequential feature selection procedures). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,794 Evidence: moderate

The results underscore the impact of education on brain structure and function in LA, highlighting the importance of incorporating educational factors into diagnosing, care, and prevention, and emphasizing the need for global diversity in research. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,412 Evidence: low

Social exposome and brain health outcomes of dementia across Latin America

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Nature Communications 2025-09-11

A multidimensional social exposome (MSE)-the combined lifespan measures of education, food insecurity, financial status, access to healthcare, childhood experiences, and more-may shape dementia risk and brain health over the lifespan, particularly in underserved regions like Latin America. 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,211 Evidence: low

Dementia diagnosis increasingly relies on blood-based biomarkers, yet their performance in diverse populations remains insufficiently characterized. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 605 Evidence: moderate

Across Latin American and Caribbean countries (LACs), the fight against dementia faces pressing challenges, such as heterogeneity, diversity, political instability, and socioeconomic disparities. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Allostatic-Interoceptive Overload in Frontotemporal Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Biological psychiatry 2022-02-24

These results suggest that bvFTD may be characterized by an allostatic-interoceptive overload manifested in ongoing electrophysiological markers, brain atrophy, functional networks, and cognition. 4 key findings →

Participants: 94 Evidence: low

Accurate early diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases represents a growing challenge for current clinical practice. 5 key findings →

Participants: 200 Evidence: moderate

A total of 158 participants were included, with an average age of 75.2 years (SD 7.65). 60.8% (n=96) of patients had AD, and 39.2% (n=62) had LBD. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 96 Evidence: moderate

This multimodal approach enhanced the system's performance and provided a clinically informative method for neuroimaging analysis. 1 key finding →

Participants: 44 Evidence: low

Cardiovascular risk factors and the allostatic interoceptive network in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Cardiovascular Research 2025-10-01

We recruited 1501 participants (304 with FTLD, 512 with AD, and 685 healthy controls) from the Multi-Partner Consortium to Expand Dementia Research in Latin America (ReDLat). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,501 Evidence: low

Cross-sectional studies suggest a limited relationship between accelerated epigenetic aging derived from epigenetic clocks, and Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology or risk. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

The model accurately identified dementia subtypes using measures readily available in underrepresented settings, with a similar performance than advanced biomarkers. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Astrocytic modulation of blood brain barrier: perspectives on Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Frontiers in cellular neuroscience 2014-08-04

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is a tightly regulated interface in the Central Nervous System (CNS) that regulates the exchange of molecules in and out from the brain thus maintaining the CNS homeostasis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Latin America’s diverse genetic landscape provides a unique opportunity to study Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,162 Evidence: low

In the LA cohort only, higher WMHs load was associated with greater GM atrophy across all groups (HCs, AD, bvFTD), with a specific neurodegenerative pattern involving orbitofrontal, cingulate, and temporal areas. 5 key findings →

Participants: 402 Evidence: moderate

Regional Overlap of Pathologies in Lewy Body Disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology 2017-03-01

Lewy body disorders (LBD) are common neurodegenerative diseases characterized by the presence of aggregated α-synuclein in Lewy bodies and Lewy neurites in the central and peripheral nervous systems. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Amyloid-targeting therapy has recently become widely available in the United States for the treatment of patients with symptomatic mild Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Twelve cases of dementia were diagnosed among individuals with scores below cutoff point and one among subjects with high scores. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,611 Evidence: low

At baseline, SCDp were older, had a higher prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia and had worst performance on tests related to processing speed, verbal fluency, visual memory, verbal memory, and executive functioning. 4 key findings →

Participants: 450 Evidence: low

Among 160 centenarians, 63.7% did not meet the PCFP criteria and were classified as having dementia. 5 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 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