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.

Legacy neuropsychiatric benefit after semaglutide is linked to maximum achieved dose and independent of the maximum weight lost

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-04-23

In propensity-matched comparator analyses, during the 2 year time-period from treatment initiation, semaglutide was associated with broadly lower neuropsychiatric event risk than metformin, SGLT2 inhibitors, and DPP-4 inhibitors. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 63,215 Evidence: moderate

Individuals who carry two copies of the apolipoprotein E ε4 ( APOE ε4) allele are at high risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD), yet the effects of APOE ε4 homozygosity on biological pathways related to AD over the lifespan are unknown. 1 key finding →

Participants: 413 Evidence: low

Treatment Effects of Cholinesterase Inhibitors in Alzheimer’s Disease: a Causal Machine Learning Approach

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-02-12

A bstract INTRODUCTION Treatment response in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) varies substantially across patients, yet no validated frameworks exist to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) from observational data while controlling for confounding bias. 2 key findings →

Participants: 4,049 Evidence: low

Real-World Performance of Urine β-amyloid Test Kits in Multiple Hospital Clinics and Neighborhood Communities of China

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-05-15

Our findings confirm the diagnostic value of urinary β-amyloid protein detection in MCI and AD-related dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 51,187 Evidence: high

Randomized metformin and cognitive outcomes in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-08-07

Long-term metformin treatment is associated with a reduced risk of dementia and better memory performance among persons with pre-diabetes or T2D. Longer follow-up with more dementia cases is needed to confirm our findings. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,483 Evidence: high

Effect of initiating an ARB- versus ACEI-based regimen on dementia risk, a target trial emulation of 2.5 million US Veterans

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-07-08

Among 2,577,000 Veterans (mean age, 63 years; 4.5% female; 65% White; 15% Black), 10% initiated ARBs and 90% initiated ACEIs. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,577,000 Evidence: moderate

Amyloid and Tau Neuropathologic Stage, Coexisting Brain Disease, and Cognitive Status in a Population-Based Autopsy Cohort

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

Among 2711 decedents (mean [SD] age, 73.4 [14.4] years; range, 23 to 111 years; 1340 [49.4%] female), 531 (19.6%) met both thresholds, 270 (10.0%) the amyloid threshold only, 207 (7.6%) the tau threshold only, and 1703 (62.8%) neither. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,467 Evidence: moderate

We investigated brain, inflammation, cardiometabolic, and gut health changes associated with a six-month multidomain lifestyle intervention in Dutch older adults at risk for cognitive decline and dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 53 Evidence: high

Differential association of step count with depressive and anxiety symptoms in older adults at risk of dementia

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-07-13

This provides the first evidence in older adults with cognitive concerns that higher step counts are associated with fewer depressive but more anxiety symptoms. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 629 Evidence: high

A 12-week HIIT+RT intervention was more effective than HIIT alone in increasing the thickness/volume signature in individuals with CAD, yet no differences were observed compared to UC and the interventions did not affect the GMMD signature. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 105 Evidence: high

DESI is a robust, fully automated MRI biomarker that sensitively detects CSF redistribution characteristic of DESH in iNPH. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,032 Evidence: moderate

In a recent open-label, single-arm study, vortioxetine, an antidepressant, was associated with improved cognitive function in patients with MCI, however, no placebo-controlled studies have been conducted to support these findings. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

STRUCTURED ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION This study examined the extent to which educational attainment, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) knowledge, and research attitudes are associated with willingness to participate in AD research, and whether AD knowledge and research attitudes mediate associations between educational attainment and willingness to participate. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Diagnostic Utility of Multi-Domain Language Measures Across the Alzheimer Disease Continuum

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-09-29

Eight of 12 measures reached acceptable discrimination (AUC ≥ .700) for DAT vs. Semantic fluency showed the highest discrimination in each contrast, though it did not significantly outperform the NAT-S for MCI vs. In a post hoc regression, adjusting for cognitive flexibility and working memory attenuated group differences; the DAT difference was no longer significant, whereas the MCI difference remained significant. 3 key findings →

Participants: 286 Evidence: low

Individuals diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have an increased risk of developing dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 100 Evidence: high

Multidomain lifestyle interventions for the risk reduction of cognitive impairment and dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-07-15

Multidomain interventions have small but consistent beneficial effects on cognitive measures, suggesting the potential to reduce cognitive impairment and dementia risk. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 23,209 Evidence: high

Longitudinal plasma proteomics separates diagnostic differences from progression-linked changes in Alzheimer’s disease

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

Most plasma proteomic studies in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) compare cases and controls cross-sectionally, leaving unresolved which AD-associated proteins mark diagnostic states and which are linked to disease progression. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 13,449 Evidence: moderate

In the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA: n=9,473, median age 64, range 50 to ≥90), linear mixed-effects models examined age-specific differences in cognitive change (recall and fluency) associated with sleep duration, difficulty falling asleep, nocturnal awakenings, incorporating sleep-by-age-by-time interactions, with initial adjustment for sociodemographic factors and further adjustment for health and lifestyle factors. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,473 Evidence: moderate

Sleep duration and mental well-being are associated with delayed memory in a 12-week digital and remote community-sample study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-08-02

Sleeping more than one’s usual average the night before testing was associated with better delayed memory ( β = 0.03, p = 0.02), while no between-person sleep effects emerged. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 329 Evidence: moderate

Age-Related Speech-in-Noise Hearing Loss in Parkinson’s Disease and APOE E4 Carriers

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-06-09

Age-related hearing loss is a leading modifiable risk factor for dementia and is increasingly recognized as a non-motor feature of Parkinson’s disease (PD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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 27,780 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