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.

There are limited data regarding cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma biomarkers among patients with Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy (CAA). 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The weighted prevalence of dementia at provincial level in China in 2018 ranged from 2.62% (95%BCI: 1.70%, 3.91%) to 13.53% (95%BCI: 8.82%, 20.93%). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 17,176 Evidence: moderate

Prevalence of Unrecognized Cognitive Impairment in Federally Qualified Health Centers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-10-22

A total of 844 eligible individuals were consecutively approached, 294 consented to participate, and 204 completed the study (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [5.1] years; 127 women [62.3%]). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 127 Evidence: low

Our data suggest that measuring blood biomarkers related to AD pathology and neurodegeneration from DPS venous extends the utility of blood-based biomarkers to remote settings with simplified sampling conditions, storage, and logistics. 4 key findings →

Participants: 154 Evidence: moderate

Combinations of plasma and digital cognitive markers show promise for scalable diagnosis and prognosis of ADRD. 1 key finding →

Participants: 49 Evidence: low

Cognition-oriented treatments (COTs) are a group of non-pharmacological treatments aimed at maintaining or improving cognitive functioning. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic-review Evidence: moderate

Higher baseline p-tau181 and NfL were associated with significantly faster decline in most cognitive, physical, and functional outcomes (+1 SD p-tau181: β MMSE = -0.055, 95% CI -0.067 to -0.043, β FCSRT = -0.034, 95% CI -0.043 to -0.025, β fluency = -0.029, 95% CI -0.038 to -0.020, β SPPB = -0.040, 95% CI -0.057 to -0.022, and β 4IADL = -0.115, 95% CI 0.091-0.140. +1 SD NfL: β MMSE = -0.039, 95% CI -0.053 to -0.025, β FCSRT = -0.022, 95% CI -0.032 to -0.012, β fluency = -0.014, 95% CI -0.024 to -0.004, and β 4IADL = 0.077, 95% CI 0.048-0.105). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,938 Evidence: moderate

DCR outperforms the MMSE in detecting and classifying cognitive impairment-in a fraction of the time-while being not influenced by a patient's ethnicity. 5 key findings →

Participants: 360 Evidence: low

Microglia are central players in Alzheimer's disease pathology but analyzing microglial states in human brain samples is challenging due to genetic diversity, postmortem delay and admixture of pathologies. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

& aims The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (atezo+bev) is the current standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), providing a median overall survival (OS) of 19.2 months. 4 key findings →

Participants: 317 Evidence: low

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) plays a critical role in microglial activation, survival, and apoptosis, as well as in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis. 4 key findings →

Participants: 3,350 Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) is primarily associated with accumulations of amyloid plaques and tau tangles in gray matter, however, it is now acknowledged that neuroinflammation, particularly in white matter (WM), significantly contributes to the development and progression of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 310 Evidence: moderate

Our results demonstrate that 1-h daily treatment with Cognito's Evoked Gamma Therapy System (CogTx-001) was safe and well-tolerated and demonstrated potential clinical benefits in mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 76 Evidence: high

A total of 239 participants underwent blood draw and Aβ-PET (age 70.8 ± 7.8, 55.2% female, education 15.6 ± 3.4 years, 48.9% Hispanic/Latino, 94.9% white). 5 key findings →

Participants: 239 Evidence: low

Blood Biomarkers of Alzheimer's Disease and Cognition: A Literature Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Biomolecules 2024-01-11

Recent advances in blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) show great promise for clinical applications, offering a less invasive alternative to current cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) measures. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Plasma GFAP levels were significantly (all p < 0.001) elevated in bvFTD (n = 22, mean (M) = 273 pg/mL) compared to BPAD (n = 121, M = 96 pg/mL), MDD (n = 42, M = 105 pg/mL), TRS (n = 82, M = 67.9 pg/mL), and HC (n = 120, M = 76.8 pg/mL). 5 key findings →

Participants: 22 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