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.

Frontotemporal dementia and its subtypes: a genome-wide association study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2014-07-01

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a complex disorder characterised by a broad range of clinical manifestations, differential pathological signatures, and genetic variability. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,526 Evidence: high

AUC for amyloid and tau PET provide expert recommendations for clinical use of these technologies in the evolving landscape of diagnostics and therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic-review Evidence: moderate

A long-term intervention with an EVOO-rich MedDiet resulted in a better cognitive function in comparison with a control diet. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 285 Evidence: high

A non-synonymous genetic rare variant, rs75932628-T (p.R47H), in the TREM2 gene has recently been reported to be a strong genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 32,598 Evidence: high

A total of 158 participants were included, with an average age of 75.2 years (SD 7.65). 60.8% (n=96) of patients had AD, and 39.2% (n=62) had LBD. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 96 Evidence: moderate

Serum insulin-like growth factor I regulates brain amyloid-beta levels

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Nature medicine 2002-11-04

Levels of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I), a neuroprotective hormone, decrease in serum during aging, whereas amyloid-beta (Abeta), which is involved in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease, accumulates in the brain. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The new diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) acknowledges the interest given to biomarkers to improve the specificity in subjects with dementia and to facilitate an early diagnosis of the pathophysiological process of AD in the prodromal or pre-dementia stage. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

TP42/40 demonstrated value in the identification of individuals suffering a-MCI, in the prediction of progression to dementia, and in the detection of underlying AD pathology revealed by FDG-PET, Amyloid-PET and CSF biomarkers, being, thus, consistently associated with all the well-established indicators of AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 145 Evidence: low

The subject groups for model derivation comprised 80 healthy subjects (HS), 36 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) who converted to AD dementia within 18 months, 85 non-converter MCI patients who did not convert within 24 months, and 67 AD dementia patients with baseline FDG PET scan were recruited from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. 4 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate

Amyloid-PET demonstrated high sensitivity (100% in year 1, 94.67% in year 4) and a high negative predictive value (100% in year 1, 88.24% in year 4). 5 key findings →

Participants: 145 Evidence: low

At baseline, SCDp were older, had a higher prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia and had worst performance on tests related to processing speed, verbal fluency, visual memory, verbal memory, and executive functioning. 4 key findings →

Participants: 450 Evidence: low

There is much interest in understanding the mechanisms responsible for interactions among stress, aging, memory and Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our case series highlighted the relevance of neurological comorbidities in BP patients; although the pathogenesis is still to be elucidated, the neuroinflammation present in neurodegenerative diseases could explain the neurocutaneous link and the chronological relationship between these entities. 3 key findings →

Participants: 257 Evidence: low

The introduction of the first anti-amyloid mAb represents a paradigm shift in the management of AD, but is not free of challenges. 4 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