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.

Aβ(+) patients with TES (N = 10), but not Aβ(-) TES, had significantly higher plasma P-tau levels than HC (P-tau181: p d = 1.34; P-tau217: p d = 1.59). 3 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

Age-related frailty and disease-related frailty may represent different degrees of frailty severity on a biological level. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,199 Evidence: low

Anodal tDCS+CS delays cognitive decline (ADAS-cog change) to a greater extent than sham tDCS+CS (-3.4±1.1 vs. -1.7±0.4; p=.03). 3 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

Intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis: risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2022-02-07

Intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS) is one of the most frequent causes of stroke worldwide and confers one of the greatest risks of recurrent stroke compared with other causes of stroke. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Sex or gender differences in the risk of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) differ by world region, suggesting that there are potentially modifiable risk factors for intervention. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The advent of PET ligands that bind tau pathology has enabled the quantification and visualization of tau pathology in aging and in Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

There is emerging evidence that obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a risk factor for preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Cognability: An Ecological Theory of neighborhoods and cognitive aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Social science & medicine (1982) 2022-07-20

While a growing body of evidence points to potentially modifiable individual risk factors for dementia, the built and social environments in which people develop and navigate cognitive decline are largely overlooked. 2 key findings →

Participants: 21,151 Evidence: low

The proposed approach offers a fully automated identification of MCI and dementia based on a recorded neuropsychological test, providing an opportunity to develop a remote screening tool that could be adapted easily to any language. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,084 Evidence: low

Because it is a potentially modifiable metabolic state, with multiple peripheral and central targets for intervention, it may represent a target for alleviating parkinsonian symptoms and slowing progression to disability and dementia. © 2022 The Authors. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Lexical and Acoustic Speech Features Relating to Alzheimer Disease Pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 2022-07-25

We compared digital speech and language features of patients with amnestic Alzheimer disease (aAD) or logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) in a biologically confirmed cohort and related these features to neuropsychiatric test scores and CSF analytes. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 44 Evidence: moderate

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tau and beta-amyloid levels in chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a disease which can be clinically indistinguishable from Alzheimer's disease (AD), are largely unknown. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 192 Evidence: low

Social isolation and loneliness have been associated with increased risk of dementia, but it is not known whether this risk is modified or confounded by genetic risk of dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 70 Evidence: low

ADRD prevalence was 5.5%. A total of 25,278 individuals had an incident ADRD code (rate: 1.2%) over the study period-nearly half during a hospital-based encounter. 5 key findings →

Participants: 25,278 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