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.

Brain clocks, which quantify discrepancies between brain age and chronological age, hold promise for understanding brain health and disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,306 Evidence: low

Many coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive individuals exhibit abnormal electroencephalographic (EEG) activity reflecting "brain fog" and mild cognitive impairments even months after the acute phase of infection. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 19 Evidence: high

Cognitive deficits in people who have recovered from COVID-19

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. EClinicalMedicine 2021-07-23

People who had recovered from COVID-19, including those no longer reporting symptoms, exhibited significant cognitive deficits versus controls when controlling for age, gender, education level, income, racial-ethnic group, pre-existing medical disorders, tiredness, depression and anxiety. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 192 Evidence: moderate

Studies were significantly heterogeneous in terms of country, outcomes assessed, and the timing of post-ED outcome assessments. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 7,940 Evidence: high

Biomarkers were measured in 431 Black and 583 White participants (mean age of 77 and 80 years and 17% and 21% of men, respectively), generating a balanced sample of 366:366. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,014 Evidence: moderate

Delirium is an important independent prognostic determinant of hospital outcomes including new nursing home placement, death or new nursing home placement, and functional decline-even after controlling for age, gender, dementia, illness severity, and functional status. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 727 Evidence: moderate

Sleep Duration and White Matter Quality in Middle-Aged Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Sleep 2016-09-01

Study objectives Sleep duration has been associated with risk of dementia and stroke, but few studies have investigated the relationship between sleep duration and brain MRI measures, particularly in middle age. 3 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Evidence: moderate

Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Parkinson disease diagnosis and progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2011-03-11

There is a clear need to develop biomarkers for Parkinson disease (PD) diagnosis, differential diagnosis of Parkinsonian disorders, and monitoring disease progression. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

We aimed to evaluate the link between severe hypoglycaemia and domain-specific cognitive decline, smaller brain volumes and dementia in adults with type 2 diabetes, which so far has been relatively poorly characterised. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 580 Evidence: low

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are age-related neurodegenerative disorders with shared genetic etiologies and overlapping clinical and pathological features. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dementia diagnosis increasingly relies on blood-based biomarkers, yet their performance in diverse populations remains insufficiently characterized. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 605 Evidence: moderate

Early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is critical yet challenging, particularly in younger individuals. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 120 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