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.

Our study indicates that changes in PVS-related MRI parameters occur in MCI and AD, possibly due to impairment of the glymphatic system. 3 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: low

Clinicopathological features of adult-onset neuronal intranuclear inclusion disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2016-10-25

Neuronal intranuclear inclusion disease (NIID) is a slowly progressive neurodegenerative disease characterized by eosinophilic hyaline intranuclear inclusions in the central and peripheral nervous system, and also in the visceral organs. 1 key finding →

Participants: 57 Evidence: low

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

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 191 Evidence: high

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

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

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

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

Phosphorylated TDP-43 in Alzheimer's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2009-01-13

Phosphorylated and proteolytically cleaved TDP-43 is a major component of the ubiquitin-positive inclusions in the most common pathological subtype of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD-U). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Glutamate released by activated microglia induces excitoneurotoxicity and may contribute to neuronal damage in neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and multiple sclerosis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disease associated with accumulation of misfolding proteins and increased neuroinflammation, which may further impair the glymphatic system. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Neuropathic pain afflicts millions of people, and the development of an effective treatment for this intractable pain is an urgent issue. 4 key findings →

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

A subtle but chronic alteration in metabolic balance between amyloid-beta peptide (Abeta) anabolic and catabolic activities is thought to cause Abeta accumulation, leading to a decade-long pathological cascade of Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We aimed to elucidate the dynamics of blood biomarkers according to the severity of cognitive impairment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and to identify useful biomarkers for diabetes-related dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Recent studies suggest that excitotoxicity may contribute to neuronal damage in neurodegenerative diseases including Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and multiple sclerosis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Type 2 diabetes is associated with cognitive dysfunction and increases the risk of dementia in the elderly. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Sixteen of 30 cases with DLB pathology had no parkinsonism, which represented diverse nigral neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →

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