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.

Diagnostic Accuracy of a Plasma Phosphorylated Tau 217 Immunoassay for Alzheimer Disease Pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 84 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2024-03-01

This study found that a commercially available plasma p-tau217 immunoassay accurately identified biological AD, comparable with results using CSF biomarkers, with reproducible cut-offs across cohorts. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 786 Evidence: high

Prevalence of cerebral amyloid pathology in persons without dementia: a meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 84 out of 100. JAMA 2015-05-01

Among persons without dementia, the prevalence of cerebral amyloid pathology as determined by positron emission tomography or cerebrospinal fluid findings was associated with age, APOE genotype, and presence of cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,914 Evidence: high

The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I2 = 95%). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 49,227 Evidence: high

Rivastigmine for dementia associated with Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2004-12-01

The outcomes were better among patients treated with rivastigmine than among those who received placebo; however, the differences between these two groups were moderate and similar to those reported in trials of rivastigmine for Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 541 Evidence: low

Frontotemporal dementia and its subtypes: a genome-wide association study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2014-07-01

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a complex disorder characterised by a broad range of clinical manifestations, differential pathological signatures, and genetic variability. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,526 Evidence: high

A non-synonymous genetic rare variant, rs75932628-T (p.R47H), in the TREM2 gene has recently been reported to be a strong genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 32,598 Evidence: high

Genome-wide meta-analysis for Alzheimer's disease cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2022-09-06

Amyloid-beta 42 (Aβ42) and phosphorylated tau (pTau) levels in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) reflect core features of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) more directly than clinical diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Participants: 8,074 Evidence: low

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

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

APOE4 homozygozity represents a distinct genetic form of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Nature medicine 2024-05-06

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of APOE4 homozygosity on Alzheimer's disease (AD) by examining its clinical, pathological and biomarker changes to see whether APOE4 homozygotes constitute a distinct, genetically determined form of AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,297 Evidence: low

TREM2 is a transmembrane receptor that is predominantly expressed by microglia in the central nervous system. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,027 Evidence: moderate

Association of Rare APOE Missense Variants V236E and R251G With Risk of Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2022-07-01

In this genetic association study, a novel variant associated with AD was identified: R251G always coinherited with ε4 on the APOE gene, which mitigates the ε4-associated AD risk. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 37 Evidence: moderate

The regulation of vasculature is a prominent causal component of probable AD. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Down syndrome (DS) is a genetic form of Alzheimer's disease (AD) that offers crucial insights into AD pathogenesis. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,135 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer Dementia Among Individuals With Down Syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA network open 2024-09-03

There were 132 720 unique adults with Down syndrome from 2011 to 2019: 79 578 (53.2%) were male, 17 090 (11.7%) were non-Hispanic Black, 20 777 (15.7%) were Hispanic, 101 120 (68.8%) were non-Hispanic White, and 47 692 (23.3%) had ever had an Alzheimer dementia diagnosis. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 132 Evidence: moderate

New insights into the genetic etiology of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Nature genetics 2022-04-04

Characterization of the genetic landscape of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADD) provides a unique opportunity for a better understanding of the associated pathophysiological processes. 2 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