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.

Familial Danish dementia (FDD), also known as heredopathia ophthalmo-oto-encephalica, is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by cataracts, deafness, progressive ataxia, and dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A major feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the loss of noradrenergic locus coeruleus (LC) projection neurons that mediate attention, memory, and arousal. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Study of the hippocampal formation of 82 subjects, including 25 control subjects from 33 to 83 years of age, 34 subjects with Alzheimer disease (AD) from 65 to 89 years of age, and 23 subjects with Down syndrome (DS) from 33 to 72 years of age, revealed hippocampal vasculopathy with fibrosis and calcification (VFC) in 40% of control, 59% of AD, and 4% of DS subjects. 5 key findings →

Participants: 82 Evidence: moderate

Older age was associated with greater odds of abnormal p-Tau217 (odds ratio [OR] 1.08 per year, 95% CI 1.07–1.09), as was APOE ε4 carrier status (OR 3.32, 95% CI 2.65–4.17). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,798 Evidence: moderate

The method presented in this paper can be used to separate stable MCI patients from those who are at early stages of AD dementia with high accuracy. 2 key findings →

Participants: 86 Evidence: low

Study objectives To evaluate the role of orexin-A with respect to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarkers, and explore its relationship to cognition and sleep characteristics in a group of cognitively normal elderly individuals. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Molecular and cellular pathophysiology of preclinical Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Behavioural brain research 2016-05-13

Although the two pathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD), senile plaques composed of amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides and neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) consisting of hyperphosphorylated tau, have been studied extensively in postmortem AD and relevant animal and cellular models, the pathogenesis of AD remains unknown, particularly in the early stages of the disease where therapies presumably would be most effective. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The metabolic fate of the Alzheimer beta/A4 amyloid precursor protein (APP) includes intraamyloid proteolysis that leads to the production of secreted N-terminal and cell-associated C-terminal fragments. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In Alzheimer disease (AD) patients, early memory dysfunction is associated with glucose hypometabolism and neuronal loss in the hippocampus. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

NHB Hispanic, and NHW participants prevalences were APOE ε4 (32.2%, 27.4%, 17.6%), diabetes (26.1%, 35.0%, 13.9%), hypertension (79.0%, 63.6%, 58.2%), obesity (56.8%, 50.3%, 38.5%), and tobacco dependence (12.9%, 7.5%, 3.9%). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

β-amyloid precursor protein (APP) and amyloid beta peptide (Aβ) are strongly implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis, although recent evidence has linked APP-βCTF generated by BACE1 (β-APP cleaving enzyme 1) to the development of endocytic abnormalities and cholinergic neurodegeneration in early AD. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Triplication of chromosome 21 in Down syndrome (DS) results in overexpression of the minibrain kinase/dual-specificity tyrosine phosphorylated and regulated kinase 1A gene (DYRK1A). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We developed a set of informant-based items describing performance of activities of daily living (ADL) by patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) to identify which ADL are useful for assessment of patients in clinical trials. 5 key findings →

Participants: 45 Evidence: low

Endocytic system dysfunction is one of the earliest disturbances that occur in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and may underlie the selective vulnerability of cholinergic basal forebrain (CBF) neurons during the progression of dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Diet and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. JACC CardioOncology 2025-08-29

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer remain the leading causes of mortality in the United States, where poor diet has surpassed smoking as the leading risk factor for death, and life expectancy has hit a plateau as CVD mortality has stagnated over the past decade. 1 key finding →

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 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