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.

There is an urgent need to address food safety concerns associated with multiple Maillard reaction‒derived chemical contaminants, such as acrylamide, heterocyclic aromatic amines, advanced glycation end products, and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural, which are present in processed foods. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The relative risk of dementia following cerebral hemorrhage ( relative risk(RR):3.02[1.17-7.78],P<0.001 ) was higher than that of cerebral infarction (RR: 2.07[1.47-2.96], P<0.001). 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

We identified 13 meaningful resting-state networks, and the dFNC among them derived four states exhibiting different connection patterns. 5 key findings →

Participants: 19 Evidence: low

During a median follow-up of 14.1 years, 279 early-onset dementia cases and 3167 late-onset dementia cases were documented. 5 key findings →

Participants: 249 Evidence: low

In previous studies, we isolated a series of novel gentisides with nerve growth factor (NGF)-mimic activities from Gentiana rigescens Franch and conducted continuous structure–activity relationship (SAR) studies. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Spotlight on Alzheimer's disease and related dementias research in East Asia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-07-01

With a burgeoning dementia burden driven by unique demographic, genetic, and socioeconomic factors of East Asia, the region has made significant investments in understanding disease mechanisms, developing biomarkers, and exploring therapeutic approaches. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

These models demonstrated high diagnostic efficacy in distinguishing diseased samples from healthy donors as well as distinguishing AD and DLB cases. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

GRc exerted neuroprotective effects in VaD by targeting Stat3 and driving its dual-phosphorylation. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Misfolding and aggregation of microtubule-associated tau protein is implicated in a variety of neurodegenerative disorders (named tauopathies), including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Tauopathies are a subgroup of neurodegenerative diseases pathologically typified as tau protein aggregate deposits in the brain, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dietary supplement silver nanoparticles have recently drawn attention following reports of hazards associated with long-term use. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Thirty thousand three hundred and ninety-eight deaths attributable to dementia as the underlying or related cause (multiple causes) were reported during 2015-2019. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

GCH1 genetic variation as a prognostic factor in Parkinsons disease across populations

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-19

BackgroundPathogenic variants in GCH1 have been associated with Parkinsons disease (PD), but the clinical phenotype and longitudinal disease course of GCH1-associated PD remain incompletely characterized. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22,825 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