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 objective of the study was to examine variability across multiple prospective cohort studies in level and rate of cognitive decline by race/ethnicity and years of education. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,115 Evidence: moderate

The rate of cognitive change in elderly persons with and without diabetes mellitus is similar, although cognitive performance is poorer in persons with diabetes mellitus. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,493 Evidence: moderate

Nationwide population-based cohort provides a new opportunity to build an automated risk prediction model based on individuals' history of health and healthcare beyond existing risk prediction models. 1 key finding →

Participants: 40,736 Evidence: moderate

Elevations in plasma Abeta(42) peptide levels are associated with earlier onset of AD and increased risk of death. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 204 Evidence: moderate

Imaging and plasma biomarkers for pathological accumulation in Down syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2026-06-01

These results suggest that all adults with Down syndrome should be screened for Alzheimer's disease pathology starting shortly before age 40 years and considered for clinical trials. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 328 Evidence: moderate

Mediterranean diet and Alzheimer disease mortality

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2007-09-01

Adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MeDi) may affect not only risk for Alzheimer disease (AD) but also subsequent disease course: Higher adherence to the MeDi is associated with lower mortality in AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 192 Evidence: low

Targeted sequencing of confirmed GWAS loci revealed an excess burden of deleterious coding mutations in LOAD, with the greatest burden observed in ABCA7 and BIN1. 4 key findings →

Participants: 176 Evidence: low

Food combination and Alzheimer disease risk: a protective diet

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-04-12

Simultaneous consideration of previous knowledge regarding potentially AD-related nutrients and multiple food groups can aid in identifying food combinations that are associated with AD risk. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

DLB and PDD boundary issues: diagnosis, treatment, molecular pathology, and biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2007-03-01

For more than a decade, researchers have refined criteria for the diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and at the same time have recognized that cognitive impairment and dementia occur commonly in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

These findings suggest that depressive symptoms precede memory decline, but not vice versa, in late life. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,425 Evidence: moderate

In these older adults, associations of risk factors with a given cause of death were related to specific deficits in that same organ system. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,888 Evidence: moderate

Research on the relation between diabetes mellitus and dementia has produced conflicting results, and the relation has not been investigated among Blacks and Hispanics. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Autophagy is the principal cellular pathway for degradation of long-lived proteins and organelles and regulates cell fate in response to stress. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Disclosure (N = 194) and non-disclosure (N = 180) groups did not differ on IGT-AD (mean disclosure-non-disclosure difference [MD] at 6 weeks: -1.5, p = 0.14; 9 months: -1.2, p = 0.35; 15 months: -2.0, p = 0.07), IES-R (MD at 6 weeks: 0.00, p = 0.98; 9 months: 0.01, p = 0.84; 15 months: 0.03, p = 0.64), or change in secondary outcomes. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 194 Evidence: high

In both the mortality and readmission cohorts we found significant associations with each pollutant. 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 118 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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