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 decline in TMT was associated with worse cognitive function, increased cerebral tau deposition and impaired functional performance. 5 key findings →

Participants: 801 Evidence: low

In the MCI+NPS group, the most frequently endorsed NPS was anxiety (46.2 %), the less prevalent NPS was euphoria/elation (1.44 %). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 376 Evidence: low

During follow-up, cholinergic WMHV was associated with an annual decline of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (β coefficient, -0.239; P = 0.004), and incident dementia (HR = 3.54; 95%CI: 2.05-6.10). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 751 Evidence: moderate

Among 2985 nondemented individuals, 601 were diagnosed with MCI, resulting in a prevalence of 20.1% for total MCI, 13.2% for amnestic MCI (aMCI), and 7.0% for non-amnestic MCI (naMCI). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Hearing impairment and dementia: cause, catalyst or consequence?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of Neurology 2025-05-16

The relationship between hearing impairment and dementia has attracted significant attention, the 2024 Lancet Commission report identifying hearing loss as the largest modifiable risk factor for dementia from mid-life. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The primary outcome of this clinical trial is the change in the Vascular Dementia Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale from baseline to 12 months. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,052 Evidence: high

Plasma p-tau-181 and GFAP are closely associated with synaptic density measured using 18 F-SynVesT-1 PET/MRI, with the relationship primarily influenced by tau accumulation rather than Aβ deposition or cortical thickness. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. 2 key findings →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

China accounts for 1/5 of the global population and China faces a particularly heavy dementia burden due to its rapidly ageing population. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

ReIU: an efficient preliminary framework for Alzheimer patients based on multi-model data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Frontiers in Public Health 2025-01-03

The rising incidence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) poses significant challenges to traditional diagnostic methods, which primarily rely on neuropsychological assessments and brain MRIs. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet has been related to a lower risk of dementia and better cognitive function. 4 key findings →

Participants: 45,906 Evidence: low

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has been improving patient outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its effectiveness is highly subjective to individual tumor microenvironment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The findings of this study suggest that predictive modeling could inform patients and clinicians about ASCVD at risk for dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 29,561 Evidence: low

Among the atrophic brain regions in aMCI, VSTM performance correlated with the volume of the right prefrontal cortex (PFC) but not the medial temporal lobe (MTL), and this correlation was mainly present in patients with greater MTL atrophy. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common adverse side effect of many antineoplastic agents. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The caregiver burden was found at a moderate to severe level with the average score of 58.14(12.84). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Most factors of the MoCA-B were significantly different between the two groups, and the PSCN group completed the MoCA-B faster (p 0.05). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Juxtacortical free water fraction, determined at diffusion MRI, was higher in participants with Alzheimer disease compared with cognitively normal controls and associated with amyloid-β, tau, and neurodegeneration biomarkers, revealing two distinct spatiotemporal progression patterns with different impacts on neuroanatomic signatures and cognitive performance. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Spotlight on Alzheimer's disease and related dementias research in East Asia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-07-01

With a burgeoning dementia burden driven by unique demographic, genetic, and socioeconomic factors of East Asia, the region has made significant investments in understanding disease mechanisms, developing biomarkers, and exploring therapeutic approaches. 1 key finding →

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