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.

How experienced psychiatrists view the capacity of patients with Alzheimer disease for consenting to research and for appointing a proxy may be related to the patients' conceptualization and memory functioning. 1 key finding →

Participants: 77 Evidence: high

Study-specific algorithms yielded comparable dementia prevalence estimates: 10.8 % in NHATS and 11.1 % in HRS-HCAP. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,696 Evidence: low

This paper reports on a Conference organized by the Washington University School of Medicine's (WUSM) Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center (Knight ADRC), entitled "Enhancing Participation by Minoritized Groups in Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementia (ADRD) Research." 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The cognitive assessment protocol of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) was designed to evaluate the reliability and validity of cognitive assessment measures that might be valuable additions to the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS) or other concise batteries used in antidementia drug trials.

White matter lesions in Parkinson disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2011-02-22

Pure vascular parkinsonism without evidence of nigral Lewy body pathology may occur as a distinct clinicopathological entity, but a much more frequent occurrence is the comorbid presence of age-associated white matter lesions (WMLs) in idiopathic Parkinson disease (PD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Women living in areas with higher walkability showed slower rates of decline in immediate (estimate=0.019, SE=0.009) and delayed recall (estimate=0.018, SE=0.008) (Figure 1). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Ten‐year Black‐White disparities in prison population are associated with cognitive decline among people racialized as Black starting one year later. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,300 Evidence: low

Among most Latinos in northern Manhattan who learned they had an APOE ε4/ε4 genotype, disclosure did not provoke elevated levels of distress. 3 key findings →

Participants: 61 Evidence: low

3 network types were identified: "Siloed"-small networks, limited task sharing (29.8% of networks); "Small but Mighty"-small networks, high task sharing (23.0% of networks); and "Complex"-large networks, diverse membership, members who share and specialize in task assistance (47.2%). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

People with dementia have complex medical, functional, and social needs and experience highly variable care quality and outcomes across the U.S. health care system. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cardiometabolic disorders and mild cognitive impairment in White and Black Americans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-09-01

Controlling for demographic/health variables, individuals with aMCI, though not naMCI, showed a higher likelihood of hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia compared to cognitively normal counterparts, though no differences between aMCI/naMCI. 5 key findings →

Participants: 8,737 Evidence: moderate

The National Dementia Workforce Study was designed to improve our understanding of the individuals and systems who care for people with dementia, but designing and implementing such a study is challenging due to the large number of patient care organizations, clinical and direct care roles, and locations in which care is provided. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Participants racialized as Black who lived in places with higher levels of area‐level structural socioeconomic racism experienced lower levels of cognition at baseline and at varying time points in the six‐year period—compared to those in places with lower structural socioeconomic racism. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,172 Evidence: low

To balance high-quality measurement of cognitive domains and maintain the ability to perform meaningful cross-national comparisons, each HCAP should include a common set of at least three to four continuously distributed test items per domain that can link domains across studies. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

A next-generation HDAC6 inhibitor for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Brain 2025-10-07

We present the pharmacological properties of EKZ-438, which demonstrate high selectivity for HDAC6 (>8500-fold selectivity for HDAC6 versus all other HDAC6 paralogues), low nanomolar potency (12 nM) for HDAC6, and importantly, CNS-penetrance (unbound brain-to-plasma partition coefficient [Kp,uu,brain] ≥ 0.55) and high oral bioavailability (fraction of dose absorbed [F%] = 70). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Genetic variants increase the risk of neurocognitive disorders in later life, including vascular dementia (VaD) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but the precise relationships between genetic risk factors and underlying disease etiologies are not well understood. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Non-White race and adverse social and socioeconomic factors-lower education, unemployment, unmarried status, and greater neighborhood disadvantage-were each associated with poorer cognitive performance (p < 0.05). 4 key findings →

Participants: 274 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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%), 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.

1,036 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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