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.

Educational attainment and cognitive decline in old age

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2009-02-01

The results suggest that education is robustly associated with level of cognitive function but not with rate of cognitive decline and that the former association primarily accounts for education's correlation with risk of dementia in old age. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Executive function in progressive and nonprogressive behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2008-11-01

Contrary to some prior reports, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bv-FTD) patients who progress over time are typically impaired on executive tasks at first presentation, although an important minority of true FTD patients perform normally. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease: comparison of speech and language alterations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 1988-05-01

Speech and language alterations were assessed in 51 patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and 10 patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT). 3 key findings →

Participants: 51 Evidence: low

Clinicopathologic differences among patients with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2013-01-16

During life, patients with AD pathology may be misdiagnosed with bvFTD if they have an early age at onset and prominent neuropsychiatric features despite having greater memory difficulties and more intact personality and executive functions than patients with bvFTD-FTLD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment: directions for future research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2003-08-01

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an intermediate state between normal aging and dementia, is characterized by acquired cognitive deficits, without significant decline in functional activities of daily living. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive Profile and Markers of Alzheimer Disease-Type Pathology in Patients With Lewy Body Dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2021-02-16

We selected 57 patients with LBD (dementia with Lewy bodies [DLB], n = 38; Parkinson disease dementia [PDD], n = 19) with available AD CSF biomarkers and neuropsychological data. 4 key findings →

Participants: 38 Evidence: low

We examined 54 volunteers (mean age 70.0 years, 56% women, 51% APOE ɛ4 carriers) with the translocator protein (TSPO) tracer [ 11 C]PBR28 to assess neuroinflammation and with [ 11 C] Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) to assess cerebral Aβ accumulation. [ 11 C]PBR28 and [ 11 C]PiB standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) were quantified in 6 regions of interests by using the cerebellar cortex as a pseudo-reference and reference region, respectively. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Increased CAIDE dementia risk, cognition, CSF biomarkers, and vascular burden in healthy adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2018-06-13

Cognitively normal participants (mean age 57.6 years) from the Gipuzkoa Alzheimer Project study were classified as having high risk (HR; n = 82) or low risk (LR; n = 293) for dementia according to a CAIDE score cutoff of 9. 4 key findings →

Participants: 82 Evidence: low

A longitudinal study of drivers with Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2008-01-23

This study confirms previous reports of potentially hazardous driving in persons with early Alzheimer disease, but also indicates that some individuals with very mild dementia can continue to drive safely for extended periods of time. 3 key findings →

Participants: 128 Evidence: low

Reliable information on rate of progression of cognitive impairment in probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) is important for evaluating possible beneficial effects of therapeutic agents and in planning long-term care for patients with this chronic illness. 1 key finding →

Participants: 430 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