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.

Progress in physical activity over the Olympic quadrennium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2016-07-28

On the eve of the 2012 summer Olympic Games, the first Lancet Series on physical activity established that physical inactivity was a global pandemic, and global public health action was urgently needed. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Haplodeficiency of the microglia gene TREM2 increases risk for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) but the mechanisms remain uncertain. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Reduction in hippocampal and amygdala volume measured via structural magnetic resonance imaging is an early marker of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Although mutations within the TREM2 gene have been robustly associated with Alzheimer's disease, it is not known whether alterations in the regulation of this gene are also involved in pathogenesis. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The pathology-based classification of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases is a work in progress that is important for both clinicians and basic scientists. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Evidence from a limited number of randomised controlled intervention trials (RCTs) have shown that a Mediterranean dietary pattern may reduce the risk of cognitive decline and enhance cognitive function among healthy older adults. 3 key findings →

Participants: 137 Evidence: high

In a single center, the ICD-9 code V66.7 had poor sensitivity and high specificity for identifying hospitalized patients who received a palliative care consultation. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

In animal models, the incretin hormone GLP-1 affects Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: high

The literature indicates that people with YOD and their caregivers face a wide range of difficulties during the disease process. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Hospitalised people with cognitive impairment experience significantly greater length of stay and when discharged to their usual residence are more likely to be readmitted to hospital within 28 days compared with those without cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The frontotemporal dementia-motor neuron disease continuum

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2016-03-14

Early reports of cognitive and behavioural deficits in motor neuron disease might have been overlooked initially, but the concept of a frontotemporal dementia-motor neuron disease continuum has emerged during the past decade. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

2016 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2016-04-01

This report describes the public health impact of Alzheimer's disease, including incidence and prevalence, mortality rates, costs of care, and the overall impact on caregivers and society. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

It could be of great improvement for the use of the MMSE in dementia screening in Chinese elderly population. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 9,629 Evidence: low

Attenuation of racial inequalities in older age can be extended to cognitive outcomes, which probably reflects selective survival. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,875 Evidence: moderate

C9orf72 is required for proper macrophage and microglial function in mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Science (New York, N.Y.) 2016-03-01

Expansions of a hexanucleotide repeat (GGGGCC) in the noncoding region of the C9orf72 gene are the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Association of Ideal Cardiovascular Health With Vascular Brain Injury and Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Stroke 2016-04-12

The American Heart Association developed the ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) index as a simple tool to promote CVH; yet, its association with brain atrophy and dementia remains unexamined. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,750 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