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.

We identified rare coding variants associated with Alzheimer's disease in a three-stage case-control study of 85,133 subjects. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 85,133 Evidence: moderate

Apolipoprotein E Genotype and Sex Risk Factors for Alzheimer Disease: A Meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-10-01

Contrary to long-standing views, men and women with the APOE ε3/ε4 genotype have nearly the same odds of developing AD from age 55 to 85 years, but women have an increased risk at younger ages. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Epidemiological studies have identified a robust association between type II diabetes mellitus and Alzheimer disease (AD), and neurobiological studies have suggested the presence of central nervous system insulin resistance in individuals with AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Clinicopathological correlations in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2017-12-01

Patients with FTLD were distributed between FTLD-tau (34 patients: 10 corticobasal degeneration, nine progressive supranuclear palsy, eight Pick's disease, three frontotemporal dementia with parkinsonism associated with chromosome 17, three unclassifiable tauopathy, and one argyrophilic grain disease); FTLD-TDP (55 patients: nine type A including one with motor neuron disease, 27 type B including 21 with motor neuron disease, eight type C with right temporal lobe presentations, and 11 unclassifiable including eight with motor neuron disease), FTLD-FUS (eight patients), and one patient with FTLD-ubiquitin proteasome system positive inclusions (FTLD-UPS) that stained negatively for tau, TDP-43, and FUS. 4 key findings →

Participants: 438 Evidence: moderate

These studies fundamentally deepen our understanding of AD progression and its underlying genetic basis, which in turn informs and improves clinical trial design. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

See Coulthard and Knight (doi:10.1093/aww335) for a scientific commentary on this article. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 530 Evidence: moderate

Clinical diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy: The movement disorder society criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Movement Disorders 2017-05-03

Here, we present new criteria aimed to optimize early, sensitive, and specific clinical diagnosis of PSP on the basis of currently available evidence. © 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

18 F-flortaucipir uptake was elevated in PSP versus controls and PD patients in a pattern consistent with the expected distribution of tau pathology. 3 key findings →

Participants: 33 Evidence: low

Neuroimaging has made it possible to measure pathological brain changes associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in vivo. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Early-Onset Alzheimer Disease and Candidate Risk Genes Involved in Endolysosomal Transport

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-09-01

Mutations in APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 lead to early-onset Alzheimer disease (EOAD) but account for only approximately 11% of EOAD overall, leaving most of the genetic risk for the most severe form of Alzheimer disease unexplained. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Although the use of hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women is associated with some benefits, there are also well-documented harms. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Optical coherence tomography identifies outer retina thinning in frontotemporal degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2017-09-08

Using a cross-sectional design, we examined retinal structure in 38 consecutively enrolled patients with FTD and 44 controls using a standard SD-OCT protocol. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 46 Evidence: low

The term "aging-related tau astrogliopathy" (ARTAG) describes pathological accumulation of abnormally phosphorylated tau protein in astrocytes. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Effect of high fat diet on phenotype, brain transcriptome and lipidome in Alzheimer's model mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Scientific reports 2017-06-27

We examined the effect of chronic high fat diet (HFD) on amyloid deposition and cognition of 12-months old APP23 mice, and correlated the phenotype to brain transcriptome and lipidome. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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