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.

Due to the growing number of older adults with cognitive impairment, it is essential to delay the onset and progression of cognitive decline and promote a healthy lifestyle. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The sample included 47 100 Medicare beneficiaries (25 900 women [54.9%]; mean [SD] age, 72.2 [11.4] years). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 47 Evidence: moderate

Association of Neighborhood-Level Disadvantage With Alzheimer Disease Neuropathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2020-06-11

The sample consisted of 447 decedents (249 men [56%]; mean [SD] age, 80.3 [9.5] years; median year of death, 2011) spanning 24 years of donation. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 24 Evidence: low

Efficacy Study participants (n = 1082, 40 clusters) were 75.1 ± 6.3 years old, 68.7% women, and 64.7% prefrail/frail; analytic clusters: 19 intervention (410/549 completed) vs. 21 control (375/533 completed). 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,082 Evidence: high

Older adults at the end of life receive a high number of hours of help at the end of life, many from more than one caregiver, which may shape hospice access. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,868 Evidence: moderate

Cognivue ® scores ≤ 50 avoid misclassification of impairment, and scores ≥ 75 avoid misclassification of unimpairment. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 92 Evidence: moderate

Variants in GBA, encoding the enzyme glucocerebrosidase, are associated with Lewy body diseases such as Parkinson's disease and Lewy body dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 165 Evidence: moderate

Between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2016, of 63 038 019 individuals who were aged 65 years or older during the study period, we identified 1·0 million cases of Parkinson's disease and 3·4 million cases of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias based on primary and secondary diagnosis billing codes. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 19 Evidence: moderate

Among patients with breast cancer, tamoxifen and steroidal aromatase inhibitors were associated with a decrease in the number who received a diagnosis of NDD, specifically Alzheimer disease and dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

PheMap significantly streamlines the process of extracting research-quality phenotype information from EHRs, with comparable or better performance to current phenotyping approaches. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 821 Evidence: moderate

Two distinct literacy profiles emerged. The first group (N=121, 44%) had higher level of literacy at baseline, slower decline and less variabilities over time. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 121 Evidence: moderate

Successful discharge of beneficiaries with ADRD increased from 43.4% in 2007 to 53.9% in 2015 (average annual percent change (AAPC) = 2.1 (95% CI = 2.0-2.2)); those without ADRD also increased (from 59.1% to 63.6%, AAPC = 0.9 (95% CI = 0.7-1.1)) but not as fast as those with ADRD (P < .01). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 17,043 Evidence: low

We enrolled a cohort of 1070 PSEN1 E280A mutation carriers and 1074 non-carriers with baseline assessments; of these participants, longitudinal measures (with a mean follow-up of 6 years) were available for 242 mutation carriers and 262 non-carriers. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This is the first study to show that WM integrity is associated with frailty in older adults. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 227 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease is the primary cause of dementia worldwide, with an increasing morbidity burden that may outstrip diagnosis and management capacity as the population ages. 5 key findings →

Participants: 417 Evidence: low

Study results suggest that, after diagnosis, rural Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD spend more time in nursing homes and less time in the community, receive less home health care, and have shorter survival than their urban counterparts. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 561 Evidence: moderate

Despite improvements in diagnostic criteria for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), the ability to discriminate DLB from Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other dementias remains suboptimal. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 43 Evidence: high

Assessing Risks of Polypharmacy Involving Medications With Anticholinergic Properties

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Annals of family medicine 2020-03-01

Anticholinergic burden (ACB), the cumulative effect of anticholinergic medications, is associated with adverse outcomes in older people but is less studied in middle-aged populations. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 502,538 Evidence: moderate

Distinct clinicopathologic clusters of persons with TDP-43 proteinopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2020-08-14

To better understand clinical and neuropathological features of TDP-43 proteinopathies, data were analyzed from autopsied research volunteers who were followed in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) data set. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 495 Evidence: moderate

Intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) is an important cause of stroke and has also been recently identified as an important risk factor for all-cause dementia, but the mechanism of its association with cognitive performance is not fully understood. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 346 Evidence: moderate

Sleep Deprivation Affects Tau Phosphorylation in Human Cerebrospinal Fluid

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2020-02-27

Tau hyperphosphorylation is an early step in tau-mediated neurodegeneration and is associated with intracellular aggregation of tau as neurofibrillary tangles, neuronal and synaptic loss, and eventual cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: low

Researchers quantified the phosphorylation state at multiple sites of the tau protein in cerebrospinal fluid markers across four decades of disease progression in dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

↑ 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