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.

Two phase 3 trials of bapineuzumab in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 85 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2014-01-01

Bapineuzumab did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with Alzheimer's disease, despite treatment differences in biomarkers observed in APOE ε4 carriers. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,090 Evidence: high

Decades of research have revealed numerous risk factors for mental disorders beyond genetics, but their consistency and magnitude remain uncer-tain. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 176 Evidence: high

A program of counseling and support can substantially increase the time spouse-caregivers are able to care for AD patients at home, particularly during the early to middle stages of dementia when nursing home placement is generally least appropriate. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

EDIC participants had consistently higher brain age values compared with controls without diabetes, indicative of approximately 6 additional years of brain aging (EDIC participants: β, 6.16; SE, 0.71; control participants: β, 1.04; SE, 0.04; P Conclusions and relevance The findings of this study suggest an increase in brain aging among individuals with T1D without any early signs of AD-related neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 416 Evidence: high

At 48 months, group differences between clinical progressors and non-progressors were significant for self (2.13, SE=0.45, P Conclusions and relevance Demonstrating long-term clinical benefit will be critical for the success of recently launched secondary prevention trials. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 468 Evidence: moderate

NPTs emerge as a useful, versatile and potentially cost-effective approach to improve outcomes and QoL in ADRD for both the PWD and CG. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

A 24-week open-label extension study of memantine in moderate to severe Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2006-01-01

This study is an extension of a 28-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of memantine in 252 patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 175 Evidence: high

The diagnostic performance of plasma biomarkers was poor (area under the curve [AUC] between 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·62] and 0·74 [0·66-0·82]) except for plasma NfL concentrations, which had an AUC of 0·88 (0·82-0·93) for the differentiation of the asymptomatic group versus the prodromal Alzheimer's disease group and 0·95 (0·92-0·98) for the asymptomatic group versus the Alzheimer's disease dementia group. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 282 Evidence: low

Previous studies have suggested that the APOE ɛ4 allele plays a role in the risk and age at onset of dementia in DS; however, data on in vivo biomarkers remain scarce. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study 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

Resting bold fMRI differentiates dementia with Lewy bodies vs Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2011-04-27

Changes in functional connectivity in DLB indicate patterns of activation that are distinct from those seen in AD and may improve discrimination of DLB from AD and cognitively normal individuals. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 88 Evidence: moderate

The objective of this study was to investigate whether increased NLR in older adults is independently associated with the risk of subsequent dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,648 Evidence: moderate

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

Cognitive dysfunction, including dementia and delirium, is prevalent in geriatric emergency department (ED) patients, but often remains undetected. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 163 Evidence: moderate

There is increasing evidence that subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in individuals with unimpaired performance on cognitive tests may represent the first symptomatic manifestation of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Nature Reviews Disease Primers 2021-05-13

This Primer conceptualizes Alzheimer disease (AD) as a genetic and sporadic neurodegenerative disorder driven by a complex interplay between loss of synaptic homeostasis and endosomal/lysosomal clearance pathway dysfunction, in which Aβ and tau products play key roles. 4 key findings →

Hippocampal formation glucose metabolism and volume losses in MCI and AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2001-07-01

We used MRI volume sampling with coregistered and atrophy corrected FDG-PET scans to test three hypotheses: 1) hippocampal formation measures are superior to temporal neocortical measures in the discrimination of normal (NL) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI); 2) neocortical measures are most useful in the separation of Alzheimer disease (AD) from NL or MCI; 3) measures of PET glucose metabolism (MRglu) have greater diagnostic sensitivity than MRI volume. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Between Feb 1, 2013, and June 28, 2019 (Barcelona), and between June 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2014 (Cambridge), we included 388 participants with Down syndrome (257 [66%] asymptomatic, 48 [12%] with prodromal Alzheimer's disease, and 83 [21%] with Alzheimer's disease dementia) and 242 euploid controls.

↑ 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