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 constructed a panel combining plasma NfL and GFAP with known AD risk factors (Combination panel: age+sex+APOE4+GFAP+NfL). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 63 Evidence: low

Association of Visual, Hearing, and Dual Sensory Impairment With Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2022-06-14

Among 113,511 participants (mean age: 56.8 ± 8.09 years, female: 54.4%), a total number of 1,135 (1.00%) cases of incident dementia were identified during a median follow up period of 11.1 years [interquartile range (IQR): 10.9-11.4 years]. 4 key findings →

Participants: 500,000 Evidence: low

Quantitative Water Permeability Mapping of Blood-Brain-Barrier Dysfunction in Aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2022-04-08

Blood-brain-barrier (BBB) dysfunction is a hallmark of aging and aging-related disorders, including cerebral small vessel disease and Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 30 Evidence: moderate

We have established a valuable homogeneous single-center cohort which, by identifying groups of variables associated with high risk of MCI or dementia conversion, should help to clarify the early physiopathological mechanisms of AD and should provide avenues for prompt diagnosis and AD prevention. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,169 Evidence: moderate

Bibliometric analysis of neuroinflammation and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2024-07-15

This study provides a comprehensive review of the last 10 years of research on neuroinflammation and AD, including the number and impact of research findings, research hotspots, and future trends. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 3,833 Evidence: low

In neurodegeneration research, normalization of regional volumes by intracranial volume (ICV) is important to estimate the extent of disease-driven atrophy. 1 key finding →

Participants: 406 Evidence: moderate

Combined rTMS and cognitive training may improve the cognitive status of AD patients, with TMS-induced cortical plasticity at baseline serving as predictor of therapeutic outcome for this intervention, and potential mechanism of action. 2 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: high

Overall, individuals improved on all C3 measures over 12 months (β = 0.23, 95% CI [0.21-0.25], p < 0.001), but improvement over the first 3 months was greatest (β = 0.68, 95% CI [0.59-0.77], p < 0.001), suggesting stronger PE over initial repeated exposures. 4 key findings →

Participants: 114 Evidence: low

In animal models, the incretin hormone GLP-1 affects Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: high

Delusions, hallucinations, and psychosis cluster were differently distributed among the diagnostic groups (p < 0.05, p < 0.001, and p < 0.05), with LBD patients showing higher scores for hallucinations (vs. MCI, p < 0.001, and AD, p < 0.05) and psychosis cluster (vs. MCI, p < 0.05). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The concept of cognitive reserve (CR) has been proposed as a protective factor that modifies the effect of brain pathology on cognitive performance. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Post-stroke dysphagia and ambient air pollution are associated with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2023-10-10

The univariable regression models revealed a higher likelihood of dementia diagnosis in patients with dysphagia (odds ratio = 1.493, 95% confidence interval = 1.000-2.228). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Combining aerobic exercise with cognitive training improves clinical outcomes in older adults with MCI and may influence stress-related neurobiological pathways. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high

The data of 508,107 individuals were analyzed (mean [standard deviation] age, 67.6 [10.7] years; 66.8% women and 33.2% men), and 39,318 developed Alzheimer's disease (22,572 controls and 16,746 using aspirin). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 508,107 Evidence: moderate

Association between periodontal disease and Alzheimer's disease: a scoping review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2025-10-15

PD may be a modifiable risk factor for AD, and periodontal interventions could contribute to AD prevention and management. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 52 Evidence: moderate

We here review evidence gathered for nearly a decade on non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), a less known therapeutic strategy aiming to limit cognitive decline associated with neurodegenerative conditions. 1 key finding →

Participants: 70 Evidence: high

Our results demonstrated that dual-task could significantly improve the ability to predict cognitive impairment based on gait parameters such as gait speed (GS) and stride length (SL). 5 key findings →

Participants: 38 Evidence: low

The results revealed abnormally increased and decreased ALFF and ReHo in PD-CN patients within the default mode network (posterior cingulate, inferior parietal cortex, parahippocampus, entorhinal cortex), sensorimotor cortex (primary motor, pre/post-central gyrus), basal ganglia (putamen, caudate), and posterior cerebellar lobule VII, which mediates cognition. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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