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 p-tau is a stronger indicator of a temporally linked response to elevated brain Aβ than of tau pathology. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,408 Evidence: low

Detection and treatment of Alzheimer's disease in its preclinical stage

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Nature aging 2023-05-18

Longitudinal multimodal biomarker studies reveal that the continuum of Alzheimer's disease (AD) includes a long latent phase, referred to as preclinical AD, which precedes the onset of symptoms by decades. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Gut microbiome composition may be an indicator of preclinical Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Science translational medicine 2023-06-14

Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology is thought to progress from normal cognition through preclinical disease and ultimately to symptomatic AD with cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 164 Evidence: moderate

We found non-significant differences in age (F(2, 141) = 1.304; P = 0.275) and years of education (F(2, 141) = 0.013; P = 0.987). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 29 Evidence: moderate

Physical activity moderated the association between MTA and plasma Aβ42/40 level and increased dementia risk. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,044 Evidence: moderate

Vascular risk significantly predicted cerebral amyloid burden in Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative but not in the UCD-ADRC cohort. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 96 Evidence: moderate

The primary outcome is change in plasma p-tau181 concentration between baseline and following 180 days of treatment, which will be compared between the active and placebo group. 3 key findings →

Participants: 60 Evidence: high

Compared with food secure older adults, those reporting food insecurity experienced worsened cognitive functioning over time (B = -0.63, p < .001), and they were more likely to have onset of cognitive impairment (OR= 1.46, p < .001) in the 6-y observation. 5 key findings →

Participants: 6,638 Evidence: low

Gaining insight into the downstream consequences of non-coding variants is an essential step towards the identification of therapeutic targets from genome-wide association study (GWAS) findings. 4 key findings →

Participants: 31,684 Evidence: low

Slow paced breathing via heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback stimulates vagus-nerve pathways that counter noradrenergic stress and arousal pathways that can influence production and clearance of Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related proteins. 2 key findings →

Participants: 108 Evidence: high

Unlike previous research that used traditional immunoassay, recent studies that measured plasma Aβ42/40 using fully automated platforms reported promising results. 3 key findings →

Participants: 174 Evidence: moderate

Plasma biomarkers for prediction of Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2023-06-03

While plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are increasingly being evaluated for clinical diagnosis and prognosis, few population-based autopsy studies have evaluated their utility in the context of predicting neuropathological changes. 3 key findings →

Participants: 350 Evidence: low

This randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the effect of 12 weeks of therapeutic exercise on cognitive function and daily activities in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 57 Evidence: high

Fourteen- and 16-second cut points for the CST are suitable to identify people at higher risk of functional decline among older adults in Mexico and Toledo, Spain. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The S@H study is the first randomized trial of a firearm safety decision aid for ADRD caregivers. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 117 Evidence: high

Once-weekly 5-mg/d donepezil TDS demonstrated minimal skin irritation under conditions of use of 3 consecutive weekly patch applications to the same skin site and minimal sensitization potential. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 198 Evidence: high

Disease-modifying drug use necessitates better Alzheimer disease (AD) detection. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional 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