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.

We tested the trained model using five other studies, three of which used PET as a biomarker of significant amyloid β burden (testing the deep learning model between amyloid β positive vs amyloid β negative). 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 648 Evidence: moderate

The MetS was associated with an increased incidence of MCI and progression to dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 984 Evidence: moderate

Evidence strongly supports the important role of insulin resistance in cognitive decline and dementia and suggests that insulin sensitizers may protect against cognitive decline in diabetic and pre-diabetic individuals. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 204 Evidence: moderate

A deep‐learning retinal aging biomarker for cognitive decline and incident dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-03-01

Of 510 memory-clinic subjects(N = 155 cognitive decline), RetiPhenoAge associated with incident cognitive decline (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.64, p = 0.004), and incident dementia (SHR 1.43, 95% CI 1.02-2.01, p = 0.036). 5 key findings →

Participants: 155 Evidence: moderate

A decreasing linear trend was observed between higher levels of curry consumption and cognitive decline (p = 0.037). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,920 Evidence: moderate

Multi-modal latent factor exploration of atrophy, cognitive and tau heterogeneity in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. NeuroImage 2019-07-22

Individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia exhibit significant heterogeneity across clinical symptoms, atrophy patterns, and spatial distribution of Tau deposition. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

An Ensemble Learning Artificial Intelligence Model for Alzheimer's Disease Detection Using OCT

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Ophthalmology Science 2026-01-10

For detecting AD-dementia, the ensemble model achieved the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.943 (95% confidence interval, 0.906-0.980), 0.786 (95% confidence interval, 0.673-0.899), and 0.795 (95% confidence interval, 0.716-0.874) in the internal validation, External-1, and External-2, respectively. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate

We demonstrated that it was both feasible and acceptable to set up these sensors in the community and unobtrusively collect data. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 59 Evidence: low

The independent and combined effects of physical and cognitive domains of frailty in predicting the development of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia are not firmly established. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

This is the first study to assess cerebral microinfarcts (CMIs) on 3 tesla (3T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a memory clinic population. 4 key findings →

Participants: 238 Evidence: low

Nearly half (48%) of older adults experienced an inpatient admission, and nearly all (92%) experienced a potentially burdensome intervention. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Early identification of individuals at increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a pre-dementia state, can provide a critical window for prompt intervention to prevent or reverse disease progression. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 87 Evidence: moderate

Neuropathologic Correlates of Seizures in Patients With Alzheimer Disease and Dementia With Lewy Bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neurology 2026-07-01

= 0.015). In this autopsy-confirmed cohort, seizure susceptibility was associated with advanced tau pathology and CAA in AD. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Parental death during childhood is associated with higher prevalence of AD, with different critical periods for father's versus mother's death, with strength of these associations attenuated by remarriage of the widowed parent. 5 key findings →

Participants: 4,108 Evidence: low

The role of lifestyle medicine in menopausal health: a review of non-pharmacologic interventions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Climacteric 2025-09-03

Lifestyle medicine interventions were associated with reductions in vasomotor symptoms, improved sleep quality, enhanced mental well-being, healthier weight regulation, and reduced cardiometabolic and osteoporosis risk. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Financial difficulties and well-being among caregivers of persons with severe dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Aging & Mental Health 2025-03-25

= 0.01). We also found that greater use of emotion-focused coping and deriving greater gains in caregiving mitigated the negative association between caregiver financial difficulty and their distress and perception of PwSDs' well-being. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The findings from this study add to the anatomical knowledge of hippocampal subregions in PD, allowing us to understand the unique functional contribution of each subfield. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Challenges to accessing community dementia care services: a qualitative study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. BMC Health Services Research 2025-05-23

We synthesized caregivers' multiple challenges under five themes - (1) lack of information and awareness limit perceived need for services, (2) cultural norms and values influence decision to seek services, (3) complex processes and long waiting times hinder ability to reach services, (4) financial constraints and high costs force alternate care arrangements, and (5) inability to meet expectations and lack of family support limit engagement with services. 4 key findings →

Participants: 22 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