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.

We developed a robust algorithm to automatically evaluate retinal fundus image that can identify subjects with high WMH burden. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 180 Evidence: low

Our findings suggest a potential protective role of green spaces on mental health (depression and anxiety) in adults, but further studies, especially longitudinal studies, are needed to provide further evidence of these benefits and of the mediation role of exposures like air pollution and noise. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The glymphatic pathway in neurological disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2018-11-01

Furthermore, PET studies have revealed that Aβ accumulates in the healthy brain after a single night of sleep deprivation, suggesting that the human glymphatic pathway might also be primarily active during sleep. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

If the associations we observed are causal, then air pollution from residential wood burning, and air pollution from traffic, might be independent important risk factors for dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In addition to an overview of the results, we briefly outline the methods applied to the concept of resting-state functional connectivity. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

GIM services care for a markedly heterogeneous population but the most common conditions were similar across 7 hospitals. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 223 Evidence: low

18F-MK-6240 (18F-labeled 6-(fluoro)-3-(1H-pyrrolo[2,3-c]pyridin-1-yl)isoquinolin-5-amine) is a highly selective, subnanomolar-affinity PET tracer for imaging neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The amyloid β subgroups did not differ for any psychobehavioural, cognitive, actigraphy, and structural and functional neuroimaging results after adjustment for age, sex, and level of education More participants positive for amyloid β deposition had the APOE ε4 allele (33 [38%] vs 29 [13%], p 1-42 concentration in CSF significantly correlated with mean 18 F-florbetapir uptake at baseline (r=-0·62, p 1-42 to amyloid β 1-40 (r=-0·61, p 18 F-florbetapir uptake at baseline (mean standard uptake value ratio 1·46 [SD 0·16] vs 1·02 [SD 0·20]), and more were carriers of the APOE ε4 allele (three [75%] of four vs 33 [39%] of 83). 1 key finding →

Participants: 318 Evidence: low

Recent evidence suggests that Web-based interventions have the potential to support caregivers by decreasing caregiver stress and burden. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Defining the primary cognitive endpoint is a major decision for Alzheimer's disease preventive trials. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Blood-brain barrier breakdown in Alzheimer disease and other neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2018-01-29

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is a continuous endothelial membrane within brain microvessels that has sealed cell-to-cell contacts and is sheathed by mural vascular cells and perivascular astrocyte end-feet. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Comparing 18F-AV-1451 with CSF t-tau and p-tau for diagnosis of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2018-01-10

CSF tau and 18 F-AV-1451 have equal performance in early clinical stages of AD, but 18 F-AV-1451 is superior in the dementia stage, and exhibits close to perfect diagnostic performance for mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

Neurotransmitter deficits from frontotemporal lobar degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2018-05-01

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration causes a spectrum of complex degenerative disorders including frontotemporal dementia, progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal syndrome, each of which is associated with changes in the principal neurotransmitter systems. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Older patients on hemodialysis are at substantial risk of diagnosis with dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and carrying these diagnoses is associated with a twofold higher mortality. 4 key findings →

Participants: 356,668 Evidence: low

This analysis combining data from two health systems shows that area deprivation is an independent risk factor for cognitive dysfunction in older adults. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,186 Evidence: moderate

Technology-based interventions have the potential to support informal caregivers of PWD. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

There was a good agreement of the incidence or prevalence of major chronic diseases in the outpatient DA with German reference data. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Based on the systematic review, evidence suggests that treating hearing loss in persons with cognitive impairment can have benefits to communication and quality of life. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

↑ 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