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

Showing 1–25 of 699 studies in Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association (page 1 of 28) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

This list as a page: Alzheimer's & Dementia in the library →

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

These findings support further investigation of ABvac40 as a potential disease-modifying therapy. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 124 Evidence: high

Slowing of cognitive and functional decline, and amyloid reduction in gantenerumab group compared to placebo group were greater in Japanese-GRADUATE than in the global-GRADUATE and JP40959. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,965 Evidence: high

An 18-month multimodal intervention for older adults at risk of dementia could improve their cognitive function. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 203 Evidence: high

Donanemab treatment resulted in earlier and greater AP clearance compared to aducanumab. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 148 Evidence: high

Lower baseline amyloid beta (Aβ)42/40 ratio and higher phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau181), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light chain (NfL) were associated with an increased risk of MCI and dementia; GFAP was most strongly associated. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,467 Evidence: high

Forty-four participants were recruited between September 2019 and June 2022. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

General baseline characteristics of the study population were mean (standard deviation) age, 58.1 (8.8) years; 47% women. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,087 Evidence: high

Mean percentage change in plasma p-tau217 in the SAMe group was an increase of 53.22 (standard deviation [SD] 159.19) compared to 25.34 (SD 94.83) in the placebo group (standardized mean difference 37.58, 95% confidence interval -32.61, 107.76; p = 0.288). 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 63 Evidence: high

Robust concordance between CSF biomarkers and amyloid PET visual status was observed (for Aβ42/Aβ40, AUC: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.83-0.97; p < 0.0001), confirming CSF biomarkers as a reliable alternative to amyloid PET in these studies. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

The APOE4 allele, but not AD-GRS, was associated with baseline lower hippocampus volume (β = -0.27, p = 0.001), greater amyloid deposition (β = 0.48, p = 0.001), 2-year decline in hippocampus (β = -0.27, p = 0.01), total gray matter volume (β = -0.25, p = 0.01), and cortical thickness (β = -0.28, p = 0.003). 5 key findings →

Participants: 126 Evidence: high

Of 285 participants randomized (suvorexant, N = 142; placebo, N = 143), 277 (97%) completed the trial (suvorexant, N = 136; placebo, N = 141). 4 key findings →

Participants: 142 Evidence: high

Phosphorylated tau (p-tau) species (153, 181, 217, 231) increased early in preclinical AD but were reduced with gantenerumab-mediated Aβ plaque reduction. 5 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 50 Evidence: high

The intervention did not improve global cognitive performance. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 819 Evidence: high

Multidomain lifestyle changes are beneficial for cognitive functioning, but future interventions should be intensive enough, and supporting adherence is essential. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high

For ACD, novel loci identified were associated with energy transport (SEMA4D), neuronal excitability (ANO3), amyloid deposition in the brain (RBFOX1), and magnetic resonance imaging markers of small vessel disease (SVD; HBEGF). 5 key findings →

Participants: 800,597 Evidence: low

Ninety-five participant dyads (PPA mean baseline age: 67.1; 48% female) from four countries were enrolled and randomized. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

White matter hyperintensities are associated with an increased risk of all-dementia and Alzheimer's disease in the general population. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,913 Evidence: high

Participants with Elevated/High %p-tau217 exhibited accelerated cognitive decline, hippocampal atrophy, and significantly higher risks of progression to MCI (hazard ratio [HR] > 6.0) and dementia (HR > 9.9). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,204 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