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.

Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 demonstrated the highest association for Aβ accumulation in the brain with an AUC 0.76 (95%CI = 0.69, 0.82) at C2 N and 0.80 (95%CI = 0.75, 0.86) at Shimadzu. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 100 Evidence: low

Multivariable linear regressions showed an association of metabolic syndrome with lower performance in attention (β=1.62 seconds, 95% CI=0.20, 3.04) and memory (β=-0.62 words, 95% CI=-1.19, -0.05) that could be driven by associations with elevated fasting glucose and abdominal obesity. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,077 Evidence: moderate

Most risk factors under study (i.e., hyperglycemia, unhealthy diet, lower cardiorespiratory fitness, smoking, alcohol consumption, and hypertension) were significantly associated with lower retinal sensitivity and lower RNFL thickness. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,666 Evidence: low

Alive PWD (n = 804) were 2.36 times more likely to have an overnight hospital stay (p = 0.004) and 1.96 times more likely to have multiple hospitalizations when caregivers found it physically difficult to provide care (p = 0.011). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 899 Evidence: low

Community dwellers with dementia were more likely than those without dementia to receive life-sustaining treatments in their last 90 days of life (advanced dementia: OR = 1.83 [1.42-2.35]; non-advanced dementia: OR = 1.16 [1.01-1.32]). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Tau Oligomer-Containing Synapse Elimination by Microglia and Astrocytes in Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2023-11-01

Of 40 included participants (mean [SD] age at death, 88 [8] years; 21 [52%] male), 19 had early-stage dementia with Braak stages III to IV, 13 had resilient brains with similar Braak stages III to IV, and 8 had no dementia (Braak stages 0-II). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 40 Evidence: low

Numerous studies have investigated the impacts of common types of chronic pain (CP) on patients' cognitive function and observed that CP was associated with later dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 354,943 Evidence: moderate

Inflammatory protein biomarkers induced by immune responses have been associated with cognitive decline and the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 708 Evidence: moderate

Portable, low‐field imaging could be useful for identifying moderate to severe WMHs. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 33 Evidence: moderate

Greater adherence to hPDI, MDS, RFS, and MIND was individually associated with larger brain volumes in specific regions. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 114,684 Evidence: low

Mediterranean diet adherence is associated with lower increase in pPD probability over time and lower possible/probable pPD and PD/DLB incidence in older Mediterranean people. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 21 Evidence: moderate

UGOT p-tau217 can be an easily accessible and efficient way to screen and monitor patients with suspected AD pathophysiology, even in the early stages of the continuum. 1 key finding →

Participants: 308 Evidence: moderate

We used within-group locally estimated scatterplot smoothing models to compare the trajectory of biomarker changes with age in females versus males, as well as by apolipoprotein ɛ4 carriership. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 628 Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a common neurodegenerative disease characterized by amyloid plaques and impaired brain metabolism. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 181 Evidence: moderate

This study provides the first active comparator data on amyloid plaque clearance in patients with early symptomatic AD. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 148 Evidence: high

Regions with Z -scores Results Patients with AD (n = 206) had a median of 12 outlier regions (out of a possible 148), with the highest proportion of outliers (47%) in the parahippocampal gyrus. 2 key findings →

Participants: 33,072 Evidence: low

We aimed to characterise the brain structure of superagers and identify demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors associated with this phenotype. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 64 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