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.

The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I2 = 95%). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 49,227 Evidence: high

Head-to-Head Comparison of 8 Plasma Amyloid-β 42/40 Assays in Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2021-11-01

When identifying participants with abnormal CSF Aβ42/40 in the whole cohort, plasma IP-MS-WashU Aβ42/40 showed significantly higher accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90) than LC-MS-Arc Aβ42/40, IA-Elc Aβ42/40, IA-EI Aβ42/40, and IA-N4PE Aβ42/40 (AUC range, 0.69-0.78; P Conclusions and relevance The results from 2 independent cohorts indicate that certain MS-based methods performed better than most of the immunoassays for plasma Aβ42/40 when detecting brain Aβ pathology. 2 key findings →

Participants: 182 Evidence: moderate

Efficacy and Safety of Cilostazol in Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. JAMA network open 2023-12-01

The full analysis set included 159 patients (66 [41.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 75.6 [5.2] years) who received placebo or cilostazol at least once. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 159 Evidence: high

Ageing and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with declines in muscle function and cardiorespiratory fitness, resulting in an impaired capacity to perform daily activities and maintain independent functioning. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Vision difficulty and a larger friend network were negatively associated with adherence. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 191 Evidence: high

High performance plasma amyloid-β biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Nature 2018-01-31

This study demonstrated the measurement of high-performance plasma amyloid-β biomarkers by immunoprecipitation coupled with mass spectrometry to predict individual brain amyloid-β status as determined by amyloid-β-PET imaging. 4 key findings →

The Dementia SomaSignal Test (dSST): A plasma proteomic predictor of 20‐year dementia risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-02-01

In addition to outperforming existing plasma biomarkers, the dSST predicted mid-life dementia risk over a 20-year follow-up across two independent cohorts with different ethnic backgrounds (areas under the curve [AUCs]: dSST 0.68-0.70, dSST+age 0.75-0.81). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 11,277 Evidence: moderate

Among all participants, 247 (11.7%) had IADL limitations at baseline, and 151 (7.1%) developed dementia during follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,118 Evidence: moderate

Using the OSHPE criteria, we found more participants with MCI than with frailty. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,104 Evidence: low

Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) needs to be distinguished from Alzheimer's disease (AD) because of important differences in patient management and outcome. 4 key findings →

Participants: 61 Evidence: low

Lecanemab was approved for early Alzheimer's disease in Japan, with ≈ 6000 patients treated in the first year post approval. 2 key findings →

Participants: 6,000 Evidence: low

= 0.279). No adverse events were reported. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

In this multi-cohort study of older adults without cognitive impairment, we show that WMH and lacunes independently predict increased risk of MCR, after adjusting for key confounders. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,772 Evidence: moderate

These results support the feasibility of bridging of clinical trials in the prodromal stage of AD between Asia and western countries. 3 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: low

Significant hazard ratios (HRs) for dementia incidence were found using the MMSE cutoff between 23 and 24 point (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.13-3.27) and the J-Cog cutoff between 43 and 44 points (HR 2.42, 95% CI 1.50-3.93). 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

This multimodal intervention program demonstrated no effectiveness in mitigating cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Age-related hearing loss and cognitive decline - The potential mechanisms linking the two

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Auris, nasus, larynx 2018-09-01

The amount of attention to age-related hearing loss (ARHL) has been growing, not only from the perspective of being one of the most common health conditions affecting older adults, but also from the perspective of its relation to cognition. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Multidomain interventions may benefit younger older adults or those with overly strict or lenient HbA1c control; however, these findings need confirmation in future studies. 3 key findings →

Participants: 531 Evidence: high

↑ 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