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.

Early cerebral small vessel disease and brain volume, cognition, and gait

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2015-02-01

Covert cerebrovascular disease and its consequences on cognitive and gait performance and brain atrophy are manifest in some clinically asymptomatic persons as early as the 5th decade of life. 3 key findings →

Participants: 803 Evidence: low

The triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is a microglial innate immune receptor associated with a lethal form of early, progressive dementia, Nasu-Hakola disease, and with an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent evidence suggests that Web-based interventions have the potential to support caregivers by decreasing caregiver stress and burden. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Individuals with dementia and their care partners often report dissatisfaction with the disclosure process due to insufficient information and support. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Of 3424 articles on potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia, 1719 met our inclusion criteria; 60 were deemed to be of good or fair quality. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Our review shows that picture description tasks are useful tools for detecting differences in a wide variety of language and communicative measures. 2 key findings →

Participants: 127 Evidence: low

Data collection will begin in four Canadian provinces (Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan) in February 2020 and is expected to be completed in June 2021. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Cerebral microbleeds and risk of incident dementia: the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2017-03-06

Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) are MRI markers attributed to the most common cerebral angiopathies in the elderly and in patients with dementia: hypertensive and cerebral amyloid angiopathy. 4 key findings →

Participants: 85 Evidence: low

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is critical for the function and survival of neurons that degenerate in the late stage of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Nerve growth factor (NGF) is critical for the regulation, differentiation, and survival of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons that degenerate in the late stage of Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

The surface-exposed chaperone, Hsp60, is an agonist of the microglial TREM2 receptor

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Journal of neurochemistry 2009-04-29

Triggering receptor expressed in myeloid (TREM) cells 2, a receptor expressed by myeloid cells, osteoclasts and microglia, is known to play a protective role in bones and brain. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Living with dementia requires decision making about numerous topics including daily activities and advance care planning (ACP). 1 key finding →

Design: umbrella review Participants: 21 Evidence: low

Higher general burden was associated with female caregivers (β = −.19, p = .05), higher education (β = .16, p = .03), caring for someone with dementia (β = .36, p = .01), and greater dysphagia-related burden (β = .33, p = .01). 5 key findings →

Participants: 211 Evidence: low

In 1996, the St. John's region had a population of 8,435 > or = 75 years, with 996 nursing home (NH) beds and 550 supervised care (SC) beds. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,044 Evidence: moderate

We conducted a scoping review to map the rapidly evolving landscape of wearable and ambient sensing technologies for monitoring people with dementia across home and institutional settings. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The incidence of dementia declined by 26% percent (95% confidence interval: -26.2; -25.3), from 2020 per 100 000 insured individuals in 2015 to 1500 per 100 000 in 2022. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation (PARylation), a crucial post-translational modification, is catalyzed by ADP-ribosyltransferases (ARTs) and has significant implications in various cellular processes, including DNA damage response, cell signaling, and immune processes. 2 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 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