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.

Growing evidence supports the concept that AD is fundamentally a metabolic disease that results in progressive impairment in the brain's capacity to utilize glucose and respond to insulin and insulin-like growth factor (IGF) stimulation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Moreover, cognitive correlations with topological network properties suggest their potential use as markers to assess the risk of Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

Object The authors describe the first clinical trial with encapsulated cell biodelivery (ECB) implants that deliver nerve growth factor (NGF) to the cholinergic basal forebrain with the intention of halting the degeneration of cholinergic neurons and the associated cognitive decline in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: moderate

PRD was associated with selective disruption of corticostriatal resting functional MR imaging correlations, which suggests that resting functional MR imaging analyzed in subject-native space may be a useful biomarker in this disease. 5 key findings →

Participants: 19 Evidence: moderate

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that specific subtypes of age-related cataract (ARC) and Alzheimer disease (AD) are related etiologically. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

It has been suggested that a theory of mind deficit may account for some of the abnormalities in interpersonal behaviour that characterize patients affected by behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

10 years into PD, a significant proportion of patients developed dopa resistant motor and non-motor features. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

With the suggested adaptations, the CDN is expected to be a useful tool for supporting community-dwelling persons with mild dementia and their carers. 1 key finding →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

Since the description by Alois Alzheimer, more than 50 years have passed during which senile dementia and pre-senile dementia have been considered Alzheimer disease (AD) on the basis of their common neuropathological and clinical manifestations. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Accumulation of β-amyloid (Aβ) deposits is a primary pathological feature of Alzheimer disease that is correlated with neurotoxicity and cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We describe 56 novel autosomal dominant early-onset Alzheimer disease (ADEOAD) families with PSEN1, PSEN2, and AβPP mutations or duplications, raising the total of families with mutations on known genes to 111 (74 PSEN1, 8 PSEN2, 16 AβPP, and 13 AβPP duplications) in the French series. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Biomarkers are needed to improve the sensitivity and accuracy of diagnosis, and also prognosis, in individuals with early Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

This study aimed to determine the stratified normative data by age and education for a modified version of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) test from a large sample of community-dwelling Chinese older adults in Singapore, and to examine the MMSE's value in detecting early cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,763 Evidence: low

Community-based surveys were performed in seven rural areas in Japan to investigate the prevalence of dementia and illnesses causing dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,394 Evidence: low

The aim of this study is to validate the Italian version of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), comparing five different groups of individuals (healthy young and elderly, sleep apnoea syndrome patients, depressed patients, individuals with dementia) by both questionnaire scores and polysomnographic measures. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

BACE1 is the β-secretase enzyme that initiates production of the β-amyloid peptide involved in Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Accumulating evidence suggests that some dietary patterns, specifically high fat diet (HFD), increase the risk of developing sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

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 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