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.

MIND Dietary Pattern and Its Association with Cognition and Incident Dementia in the UK Biobank

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Nutrients 2022-12-21

A high adherence to the Mediterranean-Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) has been associated with better cognition and a lower risk of dementia in some but not all studies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 120,661 Evidence: low

Blood-based markers (BBMs) have recently shown promise to revolutionize the diagnostic and prognostic work-up of Alzheimer's disease (AD), as well as to improve the design of interventional trials.

Association Between Dietary Habits in Midlife With Dementia Incidence Over a 20-Year Period

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2022-10-12

The aim of this study was to investigate whether adherence to conventional dietary recommendations or to a modified Mediterranean diet are associated with a subsequent lower risk of developing all-cause dementia, Alzheimer disease (AD), vascular dementia (VaD), or with future accumulation of AD-related β-amyloid (Aβ) pathology. 5 key findings →

Participants: 738 Evidence: low

Among hospitalized patients with serious illness, documented goals-of-care discussions identified by NLP were more common among patients with older age and increased burden of acute or chronic illness, and less common among racially or ethnically minoritized patients. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

These findings suggest that plasma biomarkers are altered cross-sectionally and longitudinally, along the AD continuum, and are prospectively associated with cognitive decline and brain Aβ-PET load. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 81 Evidence: moderate

Several plasma p-tau biomarkers can be used in a specialized memory clinic as a stand-alone biomarker to detect biologically-defined AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 197 Evidence: low

Plasma NfL levels objectively differentiates PD-MCI from PD-NC patients, and may serve as a plasma biomarker for predicting progression to dementia in PD. 3 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Evidence: moderate

Admixture mapping identifies novel Alzheimer's disease risk regions in African Americans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Alzheimer's & Dementia 2022-12-20

Our ancestry-aware regression approach showed that AA individuals have a lower risk of AD if they inherited African ancestry admixture block at the 17p13.2 locus. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control Participants: 10,271 Evidence: moderate

These findings suggest an association of sHHV infection with white matter volume loss, attentional decline, and astrogliosis. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 119 Evidence: moderate

Potential association between frailty and pTau in community-dwelling older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. BMC geriatrics 2022-09-26

Among the 12 biomarkers, only pTau was higher in frail individuals than in their not-frail peers (471.3 ± 58.1 pg/mL vs. 451.9 ± 61.1 pg/mL, p = 0.022). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 313 Evidence: moderate

Our results indicate good diagnostic and prognostic performance of the plasma p-tau217+ Janssen assay, similar to the p-tau217 Lilly assay. 2 key findings →

Participants: 25 Evidence: moderate

In this retrospective study, GAP-43 was measured in participants from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort using an in-house ELISA method, and levels were compared between groups, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. 4 key findings →

Participants: 786 Evidence: moderate

The positive association of choline for cognition has been reported in both animal and human studies, yet the associations of choline with the risks of incident dementia or Alzheimer's disease (AD) in humans is unclear. 4 key findings →

Participants: 3,224 Evidence: moderate

To test whether cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) growth-associated protein 43 (GAP-43) concentration is elevated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia and its associations with other hallmarks of AD, we examined the CSF GAP-43 measurements of 787 participants (245 cognitively normal (CN), 415 individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 127 individuals with AD dementia) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 787 Evidence: moderate

Diagnostic value of serum versus plasma phospho-tau for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2022-05-11

Comparable diagnostic performances and strong correlations between serum versus plasma pairs suggest that p-tau analyses can be expanded to research cohorts and hospital systems that prefer serum to other blood matrices. 5 key findings →

Participants: 115 Evidence: moderate

We constructed a panel combining plasma NfL and GFAP with known AD risk factors (Combination panel: age+sex+APOE4+GFAP+NfL). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 63 Evidence: low

Our findings demonstrated a significant association between plasma NFL levels and disrupted WM microstructure across the brain. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 92 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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