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.

Pre- and postoperative orthogeriatric care given in an acute geriatric ward was not effective in reducing delirium or long-term cognitive impairment in patients with hip fracture. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 329 Evidence: high

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

The authors sought to identify new susceptibility loci for Alzheimer's disease through a staged association study and by testing suggestive loci reported by the Alzheimer's Disease Genetic Consortium in a companion paper. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Repeated plasma p‐tau217 measurements to monitor clinical progression heterogeneity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-05-01

Three progression clusters emerged in both cohorts: stable cognition, slow decline, and rapid decline-each including cases initially classified as CN or MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 186 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

Between Sept 1, 2017, and Feb 28, 2019, 19 403 individuals were invited to participate and 9745 participants (1525 with dementia, 8220 without dementia) were included. 4445 (45·6%) of 9745 participants were male and 5300 (54·4%) were female. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 403 Evidence: moderate

These results suggest that GSTO locus variants may lower brain GSTO2 levels and consequently confer AD risk in older age. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The objective of this study was to analyze factors influencing the risk and timing of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in central Norway. 4 key findings →

Participants: 376 Evidence: low

Incidence of dementia among individuals 70 years and older in Norway: A HUNT study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease 2025-08-29

BackgroundWith increasing population longevity, Alzheimer's disease and dementia have become a health priority, and high-quality incidence estimates are needed. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Among the more than 90 identified genetic risk loci for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias, the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene ɛ2/ɛ3/ɛ4 polymorphisms remain the longstanding benchmark for genetic disease risk with a consistently large effect across studies 1-10 . 5 key findings →

Design: case-control Evidence: high

The unbiased amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration (A/T/N) classification is designed to characterize individuals in the Alzheimer continuum and is currently little explored in clinical cohorts. 4 key findings →

Participants: 102 Evidence: low

Increased levels of inflammatory markers were not associated with faster progression as measured by the annual change on the CDR-SB or MMSE score. 2 key findings →

Participants: 88 Evidence: low

Smooth Curves, Similar Conclusions? Comparing Linear Regression and GAMLSS Neuropsychological Norms

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-04

ObjectiveRegression-based normative approaches are widely used in neuropsychology but often rely on score transformations to satisfy model assumptions. 1 key finding →

Participants: 131 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