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.

Association of hearing loss to brain structure and cognition in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Midlife hearing loss was associated with smaller brain volumes, accelerated decline in executive function, accelerated accrual of white matter abnormalities, and a near doubling of dementia risk, suggesting a potential causal or biomarker role for midlife hearing loss in the prevention of late‐life dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,656 Evidence: low

In 3413 participants (mean age: 59 ± 14 years, 53.4% women), 11% had prevalent CVD or AF, 8% had prevalent CVD, and 4% had prevalent AF. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,413 Evidence: moderate

Impact of C-Reactive Protein on Cognition and Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers in Homozygous APOE ɛ4 Carriers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology 2021-09-20

Previous research has shown that elevated blood C-reactive protein (CRP) is associated with increased Alzheimer disease (AD) risk only in APOE ε4 allele carriers; the objective of this study was to examine the interactive effects of plasma CRP and APOE genotype on cognition and AD biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Among 1154 participants (46% men, mean age 70.9±8.7 years), 92 (8%) developed stroke over a median follow-up of 8.6 years (Q1-Q3: 5.1-12.5). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,154 Evidence: moderate

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that specific subtypes of age-related cataract (ARC) and Alzheimer disease (AD) are related etiologically. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Level 3 model achieved high classification performance (AUC: 93.98%), and the Level 1 model achieved comparable performance (AUC: 91.53%). 5 key findings →

Participants: 31,081 Evidence: low

The Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) undertook whole exome sequencing in 5,740 late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD) cases and 5,096 cognitively normal controls primarily of European ancestry (EA), among whom 218 cases and 177 controls were Caribbean Hispanic (CH). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

We evaluated whether insomnia symptom severity was associated with cognitive function, and whether this relationship was modified by biomarkers associated with Alzheimer's disease risk. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Inflammatory responses are characterized by the activation of immune cells, while inflammatory biomarkers intricately interact with the immune system. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Serum cholesterol and cognitive performance in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Psychosomatic medicine 2005-01-01

The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between total cholesterol (TC) and cognitive performance within the context of the Framingham Heart Study, a large, community-based, prospective investigation of cardiovascular risk factors. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

BackgroundNeuropsychological (NP) assessment is crucial for diagnosing prodromal and Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) syndromes. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,195 Evidence: low

With a rapidly aging population, general practitioners are confronting the challenge of how to determine those who are at greatest risk for dementia and potentially need more specialized follow-up to mitigate symptoms early in its course. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

is a heuristic that seeks to develop methodologies capable of identifying subtle behavior(s) that may flag emerging AD and other dementia related syndromes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The AD PRS was associated with AD in the ADSP sample, with odds ratios per standard deviation ranging from 1.14 to 1.52 across ancestry groups and robust validation in independent cohorts (Figure 1). 5 key findings →

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 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