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.

Polygenic Overlap Between C-Reactive Protein, Plasma Lipids, and Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Circulation 2015-04-10

By conditioning on the genetic association with the cardiovascular phenotypes, we identify novel AD susceptibility loci, including 2 genome-wide significant variants conferring increased risk for AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

44 participants were included: 20 PSEN1 E280A mutation carriers and 24 non-carriers. 2 key findings →

Participants: 44 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

The data are consistent with expected rates of amyloid positivity among individuals with clinical diagnoses of AD and MCI, and indicate the potential value of florbetapir F18 PET as an adjunct to clinical diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 184 Evidence: low

A consensus panel from the United States and Europe was convened recently to update and revise the 1997 consensus guidelines for the neuropathologic evaluation of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other diseases of brain that are common in the elderly. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

We used a new method of pooling cerebrospinal fluid Aβ42 and Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography measures to produce equivalent measures of brain Aβ load from either source and analysed the results using multiple imputation methods. 3 key findings →

Participants: 165 Evidence: low

Tensor-based morphometry can recover three-dimensional longitudinal brain changes over time by nonlinearly registering baseline to follow-up MRI scans of the same subject. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

Obstructive sleep apnea and longitudinal Alzheimer's disease biomarker changes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Sleep 2019-06-01

Study objectives To determine the effect of self-reported clinical diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) on longitudinal changes in brain amyloid PET and CSF biomarkers (Aβ42, T-tau, and P-tau) in cognitively normal (NL), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease (AD) elderly. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 516 Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal MRI findings from the vitamin E and donepezil treatment study for MCI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2007-04-23

The vitamin E and donepezil trial for the treatment of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) was conducted at 69 centers in North America; 24 centers participated in an MRI sub study. 2 key findings →

Participants: 131 Evidence: low

Sex differences in the clinical manifestation of autosomal dominant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-04-01

While sex differences were not apparent at asymptomatic stages, females showed more rapid declines across all outcomes in symptomatic stages compared to males. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 337 Evidence: moderate

Anti-amyloid treatments for early symptomatic Alzheimer disease have recently become clinically available in some countries, which has greatly increased the need for biomarker confirmation of amyloid pathology. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Levels of CSF Abeta42 decrease and levels of CSF tau increase in AD. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 74 Evidence: moderate

The neuropsychologic test battery from the Uniform Data Set (UDS) of the Alzheimer's Disease Centers (ADC) program of the National Institute on Aging consists of brief measures of attention, processing speed, executive function, episodic memory, and language. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are associated with loss of nuclear transactive response DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Compared to age matched controls, in the AD group, we found increases in both spectral power and coherence at the slower frequencies (Delta, Theta). 5 key findings →

Participants: 26 Evidence: low

Qualitatively, our review of 57 MCI versus HC comparisons suggests substantial inconsistency; 9 showed no group difference, 8 showed MCI > HC and 22 showed HC > MCI across the brain, and 18 showed regionally-mixed directions of effect. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

We present here both linear regressions and multivariate analyses correlating three global neuropsychological tests with a number of structural and neurochemical measurements performed on a prospective series of 15 patients with Alzheimer's disease and 9 neuropathologically normal subjects. 4 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Tau neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in the presence of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques are required for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and closely track with cognitive impairment, yet cognitively normal aged individuals frequently exhibit NFTs arising from tau seed accumulation. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control Participants: 38 Evidence: early

Effects of rofecoxib or naproxen vs placebo on Alzheimer disease progression: a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. JAMA 2003-06-01

The results of this study indicate that rofecoxib or low-dose naproxen does not slow cognitive decline in patients with mild-to-moderate AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 474 Evidence: high

ADCS Prevention Instrument Project: overview and initial results

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2006-10-01

This initial report describes the ongoing 4-year longitudinal study and provides baseline results, which confirm the feasibility of obtaining home-based clinical information via mail or telephone. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 644 Evidence: high

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 (3.7% 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