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

Showing 26,176–26,200 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 1048 of 1086) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

Flortaucipir (FTP) PET imaging was developed to quantify tau burden in tauopathies such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and to distinguish AD from other dementias, including frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Screening a 19,786-compound chemical diversity library, we identified > 100 compounds that corrected nuclear membrane defects in MAPT IVS10+16 neurons, with 23 demonstrating robust dose-dependent rescue. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Von Economo neurons (VENs) are unique spindle-shaped neurons that primarily reside in the anterior cingulate (ACC) and fronto-insular (FI) cortices. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the term “dementia”, describes a specific neuropathology together with the development and progression of age-related cognitive and functional loss. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Early-phase tau mutant organoids showed elevated tau, hyperdynamic microtubules, and neuronal hyperexcitability, partially reversible by tau reduction. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and related tauopathies such as frontotemporal dementia (FTD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI) are neurodegenerative disorders characterized by progressive loss of memory and cognitive function. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent discoveries indicating that the brain retains its ability to adapt and change throughout life have sparked interest in cognitive training (CT) as a possible means to postpone the development of dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

=3.40; P=.04). Greater cognitive improvements were associated with younger age, higher functional status, and lower baseline cognitive function. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the comprehensive dementia prevention application 'MELI' in enhancing cognitive function and alleviating depressive symptoms among older adults.A total of 50 participants aged 60 and older, enrolled in a dementia prevention program operated in Namdong-gu, Incheon, South Korea, were randomly assigned to either an experimental or a control group, with 25 participants in each. 1 key finding →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

Multidomain lifestyle interventions can improve cognitive function and mobile health technologies can deliver cost-effective interventions. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The latter often experience a loss of functional independence and geriatric syndromes including falls, undernutrition and neurocognitive disorders (1) requiring significant care that generates health expenditure. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The first three elements concerned common awareness of collaborative ACP in dementia care, role clarification for various professions and actively working towards shared goals in collaborative ACP in dementia care. 5 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

The Dementia Palliative Care Clinical Trials Training Program

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

Of these, a growing number have secured funding, initiated collaborations, contributed to dementia palliative care research, and increased confidence and comfort with conducting clinical trials (p<.05). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Artificial intelligence (AI) has gained attention as a tool to support dementia care through efficient and personalized interventions. 5 key findings →

Participants: 19 Evidence: low

Exposure to fine particulate matter (PM ) pollution is associated with negative health outcomes including dementia, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and stroke due to increased levels of oxidative stress and inflammation among community-dwelling older adults. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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