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.

Seven routine blood markers predict five-year mortality in older Indians: a risk score from the LASI-DAD cohort

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-07-09

Among 2144 participants (540 deaths over a median 4.4 years of survivor follow-up; 25% mortality), the seven-marker score plus age and sex achieved an apparent C of 0.74 (optimism-corrected 0.74), versus 0.68 for age and sex alone (Δ ≈ 0.06); the blood panel alone reached C 0.72. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,144 Evidence: moderate

Turkish Adaptation of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT): A Validity and Reliability Study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-07-06

The SPICT-TR is a culturally adapted, valid, and reliable assessment tool for identifying patients with palliative care needs within the Turkish healthcare system. 4 key findings →

Participants: 356 Evidence: low

Polypharmacy and PIMs are highly prevalent in end-of-life elderly cancer patients. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 183 Evidence: low

Prevalence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in Morocco: A population-based study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-10-22

This nationwide study provides epidemiological data on dementia and MCI among adults aged ≥ 60 years across all 12 administrative regions of Morocco. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,662 Evidence: low

This study reports the prevalence of CF among elderly hypertensive residents of a community in Inner Mongolia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Determinants of fractal motor activity regulation: insights from a large community-dwelling multi-ethnic population

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-07-06

We found opposite effects of age on FMAR at both short and long time scales, respectively (ßAge=0.014, 95% C.I. [0.009,0.019] and ßAge=-0.015, 95% C.I. [-0.026,-0.005]), as well as differences between women and men at long time scales (ßSexMen=+0.028, 95% C.I. [0.012,0.044]). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

A Transferable Health Economic Evaluation Framework for Alzheimer’s Disease-Modifying Therapies

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-05-05

Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for lecanemab versus standard of care were €296,506 per QALY gained, and €371,299 per QALY for donanemab, from the HSE payer perspective under HIQA guidelines. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

A Machine Learning-Based Framework for differential screening of Neurodegenerative Dementias using routine clinical data

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-10-07

Symptom chronology emerged as a robust diagnostic discriminator, underscoring the clinical value of temporal disease trajectories. 3 key findings →

Participants: 932 Evidence: low

Hippocampal surface analysis using discrete Ricci flow and Riemannian metrics for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-18

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that is characterized by structural changes of the hippocampus, thus hippocampal morphology becomes an important biomarker for early diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

EHR-Enabled Alzheimer’s Disease Care Pathways in Primary Care: Results from a Multisite Implementation Pilot

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-14

Implementation of an EHR-enabled AD care pathway was associated with improved adoption of guideline-concordant cognitive assessment and recommended diagnostic evaluation in primary care across three health systems. 5 key findings →

Participants: 10,206 Evidence: low

Risk factors for Dementia Public Stigma in Zhejiang Province, China: A Cross-Sectional Study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-07

Dementia public stigma was associated with education, dementia knowledge, media exposure, chronic diseases, and contact experience with people living with dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,055 Evidence: low

Functional–behavioral subtypes can be identified in hospitalized AD patients, supporting multidimensional risk stratification and individualized care planning. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 118 Evidence: low

Thorough and structured assessment is essential for identifying unmet needs and managing distress in people with dementia in acute hospitals. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Pain is independently associated with agitation and neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional MRI study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-15

Significant positive correlations were observed among pain, cognitive impairment, agitation, and neuropsychiatric symptoms (all p < 0.001). 4 key findings →

Participants: 107 Evidence: low

Brexpiprazole was associated with a distinct neuropsychiatric adverse-event reporting pattern in Alzheimer’s disease compared with psychiatric indications, with the most consistent signals observed for delirium, falls, and agitation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neuroimaging of affective symptoms in Lewy body dementia: A systematic review

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-08-17

Affective symptoms, such as depression, anxiety and apathy, are highly prevalent in cognitively impaired Lewy body disease (LBD) groups, including Parkinson’s disease dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 785 Evidence: high

↑ 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