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.

These data demonstrate that donepezil is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for VaD and show it may have an important place in the management of this condition. 5 key findings →

Participants: 603 Evidence: high

Common Genetic Variation Indicates Separate Causes for Periventricular and Deep White Matter Hyperintensities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Stroke 2020-06-10

Periventricular white matter hyperintensities (WMH; PVWMH) and deep WMH (DWMH) are regional classifications of WMH and reflect proposed differences in cause. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 26,654 Evidence: high

Based on the hypothesis of glutamate-induced neurotoxicity (excitotoxicity) in cerebral ischemia, this study examined the efficacy and tolerability of memantine, an uncompetitive N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist, in the treatment of mild to moderate vascular dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 321 Evidence: low

This trial found no benefit of 24-month multidomain intervention with focus on improvement in lifestyle and vascular risk factors on the incidence of poststroke cognitive decline in comparison with standard stroke care. 1 key finding →

Participants: 101 Evidence: high

Genetic variants within the VCAN gene may play a role in the mechanisms underlying microstructural integrity of the white matter in the brain measured as FA and MD. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 8,448 Evidence: moderate

Vascular care in patients with Alzheimer disease with cerebrovascular lesions slows progression of WMLs. 2 key findings →

Participants: 123 Evidence: high

Baseline DBP and longitudinal increases in DBP were independently associated with a greater WMHV, and the association between DBP and WMHV was greatest among blacks. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,281 Evidence: moderate

In a large community-based sample of middle-aged adults, BI predicted an increased risk of stroke and dementia independent of vascular risk factors. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,694 Evidence: moderate

Among 4712 participants (59% female; mean age, 74 years), 193 ischemic strokes and 769 dementia cases were ascertained over a median follow-up of 8.3 years. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,712 Evidence: moderate

Plasma NfL level is a valuable noninvasive biomarker that supplements magnetic resonance imaging scans and possibly reflects the severity of CSVD burden. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 496 Evidence: moderate

In this large cohort study of elderly subjects, the degree of dVRS appears independently associated with age, hypertension, volume of white matter hyperintensities, and lacunar infarctions. dVRS should be considered as another MRI marker of cerebral small vessel disease in the elderly with regional variations in their severity. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

C-Reactive Protein, Plasma Amyloid-β Levels, and Their Interaction With Magnetic Resonance Imaging Markers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Stroke 2018-11-01

We hypothesize that CRP (C-reactive protein) is associated with brain structural changes and may interact with amyloid to produce vascular and degenerative damage. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 736 Evidence: moderate

Vascular risk significantly predicted cerebral amyloid burden in Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative but not in the UCD-ADRC cohort. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 96 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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