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.

Plasma p-tau217 and tau positron emission tomography (PET) are strong prognostic biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but their relative performance in predicting future cognitive decline among cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals is unclear. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,474 Evidence: high

These data suggest a revision of the original ADAPT hypothesis that NSAIDs reduce AD risk, as follows: NSAIDs have an adverse effect in later stages of AD pathogenesis, whereas asymptomatic individuals treated with conventional NSAIDs such as naproxen experience reduced AD incidence, but only after 2 to 3 years. 5 key findings →

Participants: 54 Evidence: high

Plasma Phosphorylated Tau 217 to Identify Preclinical Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-11-01

Participants had a mean (SD) age of 66.9 (9.9) years; 971 (33.3%) were Aβ positive by either CSF or PET, 1667 (57.2%) were women, and 1108 (38.1%) carried at least 1 APOE ε4 allele. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,916 Evidence: high

Tau plays a key role in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology, and accumulating evidence suggests that lowering tau may reduce this pathology. 1 key finding →

Design: phase-1-trial Participants: 46 Evidence: early

Plasma p-tau217 is a prognostic marker for identifying individuals who will develop cognitive impairment within ten years. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 215 Evidence: moderate

Prevalence Estimates of Amyloid Abnormality Across the Alzheimer Disease Clinical Spectrum

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2022-03-01

This study found that CSF-based estimates using adjusted data-driven cutoffs were up to 10% higher than PET-based estimates in people without dementia, whereas the results were similar among people with dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 97 Evidence: moderate

In DDI (n = 431), participants were classified as CN A-/T- (n = 169), A+/T- (CN = 26, MCI = 24), A+/T+ (CN = 40, MCI = 105), and A-/T+ (CN = 34, MCI = 33), with a mean age of 64.1 years and 55.9% female. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 431 Evidence: moderate

The clinical diagnosis of probable AD dementia demonstrated good agreement with biologically defined AD (positive predictive value 85.2%). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 166 Evidence: moderate

Association Between Slow-Wave Sleep Loss and Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2023-12-01

From the 868 Framingham Heart Study participants who returned for a second PSG, this cohort included 346 participants with a mean age of 69 years (range, 60-87 years); 179 (52%) were female. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 346 Evidence: early

Among 580 participants (PREVENT-AD, 128; HABS, 153; AIBL, 48; Knight ADRC, 251), mean (SD) age ranged from 67 (5) to 76 (6) years across cohorts, with between 55% (137/251) and 74% (95/128) female participants. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 580 Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment: a concept in evolution

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Journal of internal medicine 2014-03-01

The construct of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has evolved over the past 10 years since the publication of the new MCI definition at the Key Symposium in 2003, but the core criteria have remained unchanged. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease: the IWG-2 criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. The Lancet Neurology 2014-05-18

This Position Paper evaluates the strengths and limitations of the International Working Group research diagnostic criteria and proposes advances to improve the diagnostic framework for Alzheimer's disease.

Evidence: low

Studies evaluating the diagnostic test accuracy of plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau) and amyloid beta (Aβ) tests (p-tau217, %p-tau217, p-tau181, p-tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40) compared to reference standard tests (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] AD biomarkers, amyloid positron emission tomography [PET], or neuropathology) in individuals with cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment or dementia) in specialized care settings were included. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: moderate

Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2007-08-01

The NINCDS-ADRDA and the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are the prevailing diagnostic standards in research; however, they have now fallen behind the unprecedented growth of scientific knowledge. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Reference proteins to improve Core 1 and Core 2 Alzheimer’s disease CSF and plasma biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Brain 2025-10-03

Using the Swedish BioFINDER-2 cohort [n = 1702, 50.7% male, mean (standard deviation) age 68.4 (12.2) years], we compared the associations between tau/Aβ-PET load and fluid biomarkers alone versus biomarkers in a ratio with a reference protein (Aβ40 or np-tau) in univariate linear regression models. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,702 Evidence: moderate

Disease-modifying effects of TMEM106B in genetic frontotemporal dementia: a longitudinal GENFI study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Brain 2025-04-22

Common variants within TMEM106B are associated with risk for frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP-43 pathology (FTLD-TDP). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 518 Evidence: moderate

Odor identification as a biomarker of preclinical AD in older adults at risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2017-06-28

These findings from healthy high-risk older individuals suggest that OI reflects degree of preclinical AD pathology, while its relationships with age and cognition result from the association of these latter variables with such pathology. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 101 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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