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.

Microglial activation in early Alzheimer trajectory is associated with higher gray matter volume

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2019-02-22

In this in vivo study, we have demonstrated that microglial activation quantified using [ 11 C]PBR28 PET was associated with higher gray matter volume and higher hippocampal volume in patients with MCI. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 55 Evidence: moderate

White matter hyperintensities and CSF Alzheimer disease biomarkers in preclinical Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2019-12-30

These results suggest that WMH primarily affect the risk of progression when CSF measures of neurodegeneration or neuronal injury (as reflected by t-tau) are low. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 274 Evidence: moderate

Baseline predictors of rates of hippocampal atrophy in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2007-10-01

Rates of hippocampal atrophy (%/year) were 0.0 +/- 0.8 in the absent, 1.7 +/- 0.4 in the moderate, and 3.6 +/- 1.0 in the severe (mean +/- SD) tertile. 2 key findings →

Participants: 323 Evidence: moderate

Mixed pathology is more likely in black than white decedents with Alzheimer dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2015-07-15

Black decedents with AD dementia are more likely to have mixed brain pathologies compared with age-, sex-, education-, and cognition-matched white decedents with AD dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 122 Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson disease: a multicenter pooled analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2010-09-01

MCI is common in patients with PD without dementia, affecting a range of cognitive domains, including memory, visual-spatial, and attention/executive abilities. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,346 Evidence: moderate

Long-term Effects of Cholinesterase Inhibitors on Cognitive Decline and Mortality

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2021-03-19

Patients with Alzheimer dementia from the Swedish Dementia Registry starting on ChEIs within 3 months of the dementia diagnosis were included and compared to nontreated patients with Alzheimer dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 11,652 Evidence: moderate

Choroid plexus (ChP) is emerging as a key brain structure in the pathophysiology of neurodegenerative disorders. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 135 Evidence: moderate

= 0.009). Significant differences in annualized changes in these FA and MD values were found depending on the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes and smoking. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,471 Evidence: moderate

The rare TREM2 R47H variant exerts only a modest effect on Alzheimer disease risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2014-09-03

Meta-analysis of the 2 family-based and the 5 case-control cohorts yielded a p value of 0.0029, while the overall summary estimate (using case-control data only) resulted in an odds ratio of 1.67 (95% confidence interval 0.95-2.92) for the association between the TREM2 R47H and increased AD risk. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

A/T/N: An unbiased descriptive classification scheme for Alzheimer disease biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2016-07-01

Biomarkers have become an essential component of Alzheimer disease (AD) research and because of the pervasiveness of AD pathology in the elderly, the same biomarkers are used in cognitive aging research. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

ATN classification and clinical progression in subjective cognitive decline: The SCIENCe project

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2020-06-10

Among individuals presenting with SCD at a memory clinic, those with a biomarker profile A-T+N+, A+T-N-, A+T+N-, and A+T+N+ were at increased risk of dementia, and showed steeper cognitive decline compared to A-T-N- individuals. 4 key findings →

Participants: 385 Evidence: moderate

Our study indicates that changes in PVS-related MRI parameters occur in MCI and AD, possibly due to impairment of the glymphatic system. 3 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: low

White matter lesions: Spatial heterogeneity, links to risk factors, cognition, genetics, and atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2018-08-03

These results support the hypothesis that the appearance of WMH follows age and disease-dependent regional distribution patterns, potentially influenced by differential underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, and possibly with a differential link to vascular and neurodegenerative changes. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,836 Evidence: moderate

Online education involving a celebrity may be an effective strategy for educating college students about AD risk reduction strategies. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 721 Evidence: high

Systematic review of the literature using the American Academy of Neurology's evidence-based methods. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: third report of the DLB Consortium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2005-10-19

The dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) Consortium has revised criteria for the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of DLB incorporating new information about the core clinical features and suggesting improved methods to assess them. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders persist in the era of potent antiretroviral therapy: CHARTER Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2010-12-01

The most severe HAND diagnosis (HAD) was rare, but milder forms of impairment remained common, even among those receiving CART who had minimal comorbidities. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 843 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