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.

Blood-Based Protein Biomarkers for Diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Archives of Neurology 2012-07-17

A biomarker panel was identified that included markers significantly increased (cortisol, pancreatic polypeptide, insulinlike growth factor binding protein 2, β(2) microglobulin, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, carcinoembryonic antigen, matrix metalloprotein 2, CD40, macrophage inflammatory protein 1α, superoxide dismutase, and homocysteine) and decreased (apolipoprotein E, epidermal growth factor receptor, hemoglobin, calcium, zinc, interleukin 17, and albumin) in AD. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 207 Evidence: moderate

Atorvastatin for the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease: preliminary results

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2005-05-01

Atorvastatin treatment may be of some clinical benefit and could be established as an effective therapy for Alzheimer disease if the current findings are substantiated by a much larger multicenter trial. 3 key findings →

Participants: 98 Evidence: high

Cognitive decline over 36 months of continuous galantamine treatment was substantially less than the predicted cognitive decline of untreated patients with mild to moderate dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 119 Evidence: high

Diabetes, glucose control, and 9-year cognitive decline among older adults without dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2012-09-01

Among well-functioning older adults, DM and poor glucose control among those with DM are associated with worse cognitive function and greater decline. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 717 Evidence: moderate

The development of MCI is associated with measurements of cognition and depression, racial and constitutional factors, and cerebrovascular disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 927 Evidence: moderate

Meta-analysis of the association between variants in SORL1 and Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2011-01-01

Comprehensive and unbiased meta-analysis of all published and unpublished data from case-control studies for the SORL1 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that had been repeatedly assessed across studies. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 12,464 Evidence: high

Diabetes mellitus and risk of developing Alzheimer disease: results from the Framingham Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2006-11-01

Diabetes mellitus did not increase the risk of incident AD in the Framingham cohort overall; however, DM may be a risk factor for AD in the absence of other known major AD risk factors. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,210 Evidence: moderate

Donepezil is an effective and safe drug for the long-term symptomatic treatment of mild to moderately severe AD for up to 144 weeks (2.8 years), and sustained treatment may confer some advantages. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 763 Evidence: low

When proper normative values are used, only age and education, and not race or ethnicity, are associated with higher frequency of MCI. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

A 24-week open-label extension study of memantine in moderate to severe Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2006-01-01

This study is an extension of a 28-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of memantine in 252 patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 175 Evidence: high

Physical exercise, aging, and mild cognitive impairment: a population-based study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-01-01

In this population-based case-control study, any frequency of moderate exercise performed in midlife or late life was associated with a reduced odds of having MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,324 Evidence: moderate

Folate, vitamin B12, and serum total homocysteine levels in confirmed Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Archives of neurology 1998-11-01

Serum tHcy levels were significantly higher and serum folate and vitamin B12 levels were lower in patients with DAT and patients with histologically confirmed AD than in controls. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 164 Evidence: moderate

Encoding-task fMRI was successfully implemented in a single-site, 24-week, AD randomized controlled trial. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 24 Evidence: high

Physical activity and risk of cognitive impairment and dementia in elderly persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2001-03-01

Regular physical activity could represent an important and potent protective factor for cognitive decline and dementia in elderly persons. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia in clinic- vs community-based cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2009-09-01

These findings add to the growing literature to suggest that the degree of functional impairment at baseline is an important predictor of conversion to dementia and may help explain differences in findings between epidemiological and clinic-based studies. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 28 Evidence: moderate

Dietary antioxidants and long-term risk of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-07-01

The Rotterdam Study previously found that higher dietary intakes of vitamins E and C related to lower risk of dementia and Alzheimer disease (AD) over 6 years of follow-up. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,395 Evidence: moderate

We conclude that patients with mild cognitive impairment and depression are at more than twice the risk of developing dementia of Alzheimer type as those without depression. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 114 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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