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.

After backward stepwise selection in year 0, the following factors were associated with increased risk of death by more than 10%: being hospitalized; having congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or dementia; having moderate to high pain; having worse well-being; having functional status in the transitional or end-of-life phase; having any problems with appetite; receiving end-of-life home care; and living in a nursing home. 2 key findings →

Participants: 494 Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular Health and Biomarkers of Neurodegenerative Disease in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA network open 2025-03-03

These findings suggest that promoting CVH in older adults may help alleviate the burden of neurodegenerative diseases, particularly among Black adults, who are known to experience a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,018 Evidence: moderate

Identifying brain regions associated with risk factors for dementia could guide mechanistic understanding of risk factors associated with Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 8,312 Evidence: low

Meat Consumption and Cognitive Health by APOE Genotype

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-03-19

Among 2157 older adults without dementia (mean [SD] age 71.2 [9.2] years; 1337 female [62.0%]), 1680 participants had longitudinal cognition data and 569 participants (26.4%) had APOE34/44 genotypes. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,680 Evidence: moderate

APOE ε4 and Accelerated Cognitive Decline Among Cognitively Healthy Middle-Aged and Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-03-06

Among 4392 participants (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [7.8] years; 2359 [53.7%] women), 723 (16.5%) were APOE ε4 heterozygotes and 33 (0.8%) were APOE ε4 homozygotes. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,392 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers and Subjective Cognitive Decline Among Hispanic and/or Latino Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA network open 2025-09-02

Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) may be an early indicator of Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD), yet its association with plasma biomarkers remains unclear among middle-aged and older adults (aged 50-86 years). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,712 Evidence: moderate

Active Travel Mode and Incident Dementia and Brain Structure

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-06-09

The study encompassed 479 723 participants (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [8.1] years; 260 730 females [54.4%]), including 271 690 in the YOD analyses and 334 939 in the LOD analyses. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 723 Evidence: moderate

Among the 1665 AIBL participants (741 [44.5%] female) and 2029 ADNI participants (925 [45.6%] female), the mean (SD) age at first evaluation was 71.8 (7.1) years and 74.5 (6.7) years, respectively. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Use of Feeding Tubes Among Hospitalized Older Adults With Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-02-20

Among 143 331 older adults with dementia (83 536 [58.3%] female; mean [SD] age, 83.8 [7.5] years), 1312 (0.9%) received a feeding tube in hospital and 142 019 (99.1%) did not. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

A total of 110 participants (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [4.6] years; 68 female [61.8%]) were randomized to the experimental group (n = 55) and the sham group (n = 55) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 5 key findings →

Participants: 55 Evidence: high

The sample included 2 619 464 patients (mean [SD] age, 81.3 [8.6] years; 61% women; 87% were White; 8% were Black; 22% with ADRD). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 464 Evidence: low

Self- and Informant-Report Cognitive Decline Discordance and Mild Cognitive Impairment Diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-04-18

ADNI participants (921 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (7) years and mean (SD) of 17 (3) years of education; 485 (53%) were female, 30 (3%) were Asian, 105 (11%) were Black, and 756 (82%) were White. eVAL participants (279 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (8) years and mean (SD) of 17 (2) years of education; 151 (54%) were female, 17 (6%) were Asian, 12 (4%) were Black, and 245 (88%) were White. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 921 Evidence: moderate

Generational Differences in Age-Specific Dementia Prevalence Rates

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-06-02

In this cross-sectional study examining generational differences in age-specific dementia prevalence across the US, Europe, and England, we found that individuals from more recent birth cohorts had lower proportions of people with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 62,437 Evidence: moderate

Neuropathologic Profiles and Associated Cognitive Trajectories in Community-Living Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-01-02

Latent neuropathologic profiles were identified using hierarchical clustering, and longitudinal cognitive trajectories associated with each profile were estimated using functional mixed-effects models. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,633 Evidence: high

Association of Sleep and β-Amyloid Pathology Among Older Cognitively Unimpaired Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA network open 2021-07-01

Amyloid PET and sleep duration information was acquired on 4425 cognitively unimpaired participants (mean [SD] age, 71.3 [4.7] years; 2628 [59.4%] female; 1509 [34.1%] tested Aβ positive). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The Evolution of Randomized Clinical Trial Designs to Assess Therapeutics in Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA network open 2025-08-01

A substantial difference in the type of therapeutics researched was observed, with anti-amyloid and anti-tau RCTs being more likely to be funded by the pharmaceutical industry compared with neurotransmitter or other RCTs (anti-amyloid or anti-tau, 68 of 71 [95.8%]; neurotransmitter, 52 of 69 [77.6%]; other, 33 of 52 [63.5%]). 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 203 Evidence: high

Some of the unexplained heritability of Alzheimer disease (AD) may be due to rare variants whose effects are not captured in genome-wide association studies because very large samples are needed to observe statistically significant associations. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,617 Evidence: low

Blood-Based Analysis of Different Tau Variants in Patients With Multiple Traumatic Injuries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA network open 2026-02-02

With blood-based phosphorylated tau biomarkers soon to be used for diagnosis of Alzheimer disease, analyzing tau levels in other conditions could enhance biomarker interpretability. 4 key findings →

Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate

Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein and Neurofilament Light Reference Intervals in Healthy Individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-05-14

In 7989 cognitively unimpaired participants (median [range] age, 54 [30-90] years; 4877 [61.3%] female; mean [SD] BMI, 25.9 [4.2]; mean [SD] eGFR, 80.7 [14.7] mL/min/1.73 m2), older age, lower BMI, and reduced kidney function were associated with increased NfL and GFAP concentrations; female sex was associated with increased GFAP concentrations. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 179 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