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

Showing 4,876–4,900 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 196 of 1086) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

Animal models of Alzheimer's disease have suggested that tau pathology propagation, facilitated by amyloid pathology, may occur along connected pathways. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Magnetic resonance imaging of hippocampal subfields in posttraumatic stress disorder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Archives of general psychiatry 2010-03-01

The findings indicate for the first time in humans that PTSD is associated with selective volume loss of the CA3/dentate gyrus subfields, consistent with animal studies, implying that chronic stress suppresses neurogenesis and dendritic branching in these structures. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate

Olfactory identification deficits and MCI in a multi-ethnic elderly community sample

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2008-10-28

Odor identification deficits occur in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and predict clinical conversion from MCI to AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 571 Evidence: moderate

Brain tissue volumes in relation to cognitive function and risk of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2008-05-23

We investigated in a population-based cohort study the association of global and lobar brain tissue volumes with specific cognitive domains and risk of dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 490 Evidence: moderate

There is increasing recognition of the importance of blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption in aging, dementia, stroke and multiple sclerosis in addition to more commonly-studied pathologies such as tumors. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Elevated midlife blood pressures, and the resulting increased white matter hyperintensities, increase the risk for MCI in a group of community-dwelling older men to at least the same degree as apolipoprotein E4 genotype. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Homocysteine, white matter hyperintensities, and cognition in healthy elderly people

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2003-02-01

Hyperhomocysteinemia is associated with an increased risk of vascular disease, and recent results suggest that it also could increase the risk of dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,241 Evidence: moderate

Clinical determinants of dementia related to stroke

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 1993-06-01

Among 251 patients examined 3 months after the onset of acute ischemic stroke, we diagnosed dementia in 66 (26.3%) by using modified DSM-III-R criteria based on neuropsychological, neurological, functional, and psychiatric examinations. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 251 Evidence: low

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

The elevated levels of OAβ in the plasma distinguished the AD and control groups and were associated with the severity of symptoms, especially memory performance, in patients with AD. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Our data suggest that measuring blood biomarkers related to AD pathology and neurodegeneration from DPS venous extends the utility of blood-based biomarkers to remote settings with simplified sampling conditions, storage, and logistics. 4 key findings →

Participants: 154 Evidence: moderate

We sought to assess risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers compared with the general community and the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on risk. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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