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.

Genome-wide meta-analysis for Alzheimer's disease cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2022-09-06

Amyloid-beta 42 (Aβ42) and phosphorylated tau (pTau) levels in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) reflect core features of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) more directly than clinical diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Participants: 8,074 Evidence: low

Bupropion for the Treatment of Apathy in Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA network open 2020-05-01

After controlling for the baseline AES-C score, site, and comedication with donepezil or galantamine, the mean change in the AES-C score between the bupropion and placebo groups was not statistically significant (mean change, 2.22; 95% CI, -0.47 to 4.91; P = .11). 4 key findings →

Participants: 108 Evidence: high

81 participants with probable Alzheimer's disease and 69 healthy controls were assessed. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 81 Evidence: high

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

Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is proposed as an indicator of transitional disease stage 2 in the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 457 Evidence: moderate

Of 736 patients (245 [33%] female, mean age 68·0 years [SD 11·2], median admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 3 [IQR 1-5]), 557 (76%) were followed up until death or the end of the study, and 706 (96%) contributed to the PSD analysis. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 736 Evidence: moderate

In this publication, we report cognitive and clinical data as well as apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker results of the first 394 baseline data sets. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

& aims The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (atezo+bev) is the current standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), providing a median overall survival (OS) of 19.2 months. 4 key findings →

Participants: 317 Evidence: low

Healthcare costs are already elevated in early subjective and objective cognitive impairment, driven by formal and informal care. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia, characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-beta (Aβ) and neurofibrillary tangles. 4 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: low

Early and accurate detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is essential for timely intervention and development of disease-modifying treatments. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In Alzheimer's disease (AD), a single-nucleotide polymorphism in the gene encoding brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF Val66Met ) is associated with worse impact of primary AD pathology (beta-amyloid, Aβ) on neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, rendering BDNF Val66Met an important modulating factor of cognitive impairment in AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 149 Evidence: low

Our findings suggest that non-economic social deprivation, especially in terms of access to a grocery store, pharmacy, postal office, and bus stop, might be relevant for maintaining cognitive functioning in old age. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 91 Evidence: moderate

Our findings support speech-based cognitive assessments as a promising avenue towards remote MCI screening, with implications for scalable screening in clinical trials and healthcare. 3 key findings →

Participants: 110 Evidence: low

Increased peripheral and central nervous system cortisol levels have been reported in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and may reflect dysfunction of cerebral components of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

MRI-derived brain aging trajectories across the Alzheimer's continuum: links to cognition, pathology and lifestyle risk factors

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-22

BackgroundThe brain age gap (BAG), the difference between neuroimaging-predicted and chronological age, captures inter-individual variation in brain aging. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 202 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