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.

Geographic Variation in Neurologist Density and Neurologic Care in the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2020-12-23

Mean density of neurologists varied nearly 4-fold from the lowest to the highest density quintile (9.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.2-10.2] vs 43.1 [95% CI 37.6-48.5] per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Index participants averaged 71.9 years, with > 50% lacking formal education. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,309 Evidence: moderate

Sex differences in clinical phenotypes of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-04-01

Females with sporadic bvFTD showed worse compulsive behavior (p = 0.026) and language impairments (p = 0.024) compared to females with genetic bvFTD (n = 152). 5 key findings →

Participants: 152 Evidence: low

Although pathogenic variants in PSEN1 leading to autosomal-dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) are highly penetrant, substantial interindividual variability in the rates of cognitive decline and biomarker change are observed in ADAD. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Noncognitive neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) of dementia (aggression, agitation, depression, anxiety, delusions, hallucinations, apathy, disinhibition) affect individuals with dementia nearly universally across dementia stages and etiologies. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

We held an international consensus conference on frontotemporal dementia, behavioral disturbances, and parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 to determine whether these are homogeneous or heterogeneous disorders, to agree on terminology, and to develop strategies for further research. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Characterizing Alzheimer's disease using a hypometabolic convergence index

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. NeuroImage 2011-01-27

This article introduces a hypometabolic convergence index (HCI) for the assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD); compares it to other biological, cognitive and clinical measures; and demonstrates its promise to predict clinical decline in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients using data from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

These lessons emphasize the importance of ensuring tests are feasible across both high-income countries and LMICs, maintaining consistency within studies and over time, and designing comprehensive cognitive batteries for improved measurement precision of general and domain-specific phenotypes. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Machine learning (ML) on structural MRI data shows high potential for classifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression, but the specific contribution of brain regions, demographics, and proteinopathy remains unclear. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 568 Evidence: moderate

Continued Use of Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine in Hospice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. JAMA Internal Medicine 2025-03-24

This cohort study examines the use of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine among older adults with dementia after admission into hospice care despite the medications’ limited clinical benefit following enrollment into hospice. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

ABSTRACTObjectives:Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are nearly universal in dementia, a condition occurring in more than 40 million people worldwide. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum, the prodromal state of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) precedes AD dementia and identifying MCI individuals at risk of progression is important for clinical management. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A significant ADI × dementia interaction was observed for global atrophy (p = .005) and several other outcomes. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate

When risk factors were evaluated independently, we found less early-life education, mid-life hearing loss and diabetes, and late-life social isolation and visual loss associated with increased odds for dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,526 Evidence: moderate

Altered brain white matter integrity in healthy carriers of the APOE epsilon4 allele: a risk for AD?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neurology 2006-04-01

Although the mechanism underlying vulnerability of white matter tracts in APOE epsilon4 carriers is still unknown, these findings suggest that increased genetic risk for developing Alzheimer disease is associated with changes in microscopic white matter integrity well before the onset of dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

A substantial proportion of persons with AD who were thought incapable of consenting to lower-risk or higher-risk studies have preserved capacity for appointing a research proxy. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Among mild to moderate AD patients, enrolled in an actual clinical trial, these results suggest evidence based guidelines for using the MacCAT-CR understanding subscale to help guide judgments about whether a patient has the capacity to consent. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

Reducing between scanner differences in multi-center PET studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. NeuroImage 2009-02-06

This work is part of the multi-center Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), a large multi-site study of dementia, including patients having mild cognitive impairment (MCI), probable Alzheimer's disease (AD), as well as healthy elderly controls. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We studied the clinical features, pathology, and molecular genetics of a family (Mo) with an autosomal dominant disinhibition, frontal lobe dementia, parkinsonism, and amyotrophy. 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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