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.

The genetics dataset yielded two subtypes of AD characterized mainly by the presence/absence of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 genotype, but also involving differential presence of risk alleles of CD2AP, SPON1 and LOC39095 SNPs that were associated with differences in the respective patterns of brain atrophy, especially in the precuneus. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Automated analysis of MRI data of the subregions of the hippocampus requires computational atlases built at a higher resolution than those that are typically used in current neuroimaging studies. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

A growing number of structural neuroimaging studies have reported significant changes in gray matter density or volume and white matter microstructure in the adult human brain following training. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Hippocampus segmentation in MR images using atlas registration, voxel classification, and graph cuts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. NeuroImage 2008-08-12

Since hippocampal volume has been found to be an early biomarker for Alzheimer's disease, there is large interest in automated methods to accurately, robustly, and reproducibly extract the hippocampus from MRI data. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Due to its crucial role for memory processes and its relevance in neurological and psychiatric disorders, the hippocampus has been the focus of neuroimaging research for several decades. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

NODDI: practical in vivo neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging of the human brain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. NeuroImage 2012-03-30

This paper introduces neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI), a practical diffusion MRI technique for estimating the microstructural complexity of dendrites and axons in vivo on clinical MRI scanners. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The early identification of brain anatomy deviating from the normal pattern of growth and atrophy, such as in Alzheimer's disease (AD), has the potential to improve clinical outcomes through early intervention. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Recent functional imaging studies have indicated that the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) can be associated with the changes in spontaneous low-frequency (<0.08 Hz) blood oxygenation level-dependent fluctuations (LFBF) measured during a resting state. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Many machine learning and pattern classification methods have been applied to the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its prodromal stage, i.e., mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Stereotaxic probabilistic maps of the magnocellular cell groups in human basal forebrain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. NeuroImage 2008-06-07

The basal forebrain contains several interdigitating anatomical structures, including the diagonal band of Broca, the basal nucleus of Meynert, the ventral striatum, and also cell groups underneath the globus pallidus that bridge the centromedial amygdala to the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Noninvasive monitoring of β-amyloid (Aβ) plaques, the neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD), is critical for AD diagnosis and prognosis. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Mapping cortical change in Alzheimer's disease, brain development, and schizophrenia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. NeuroImage 2004-01-01

This paper describes algorithms that can identify patterns of brain structure and function associated with Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, normal aging, and abnormal brain development based on imaging data collected in large human populations. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

There are growing numbers of studies using machine learning approaches to characterize patterns of anatomical difference discernible from neuroimaging data. 1 key finding →

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 27,780 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