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.

Medial temporal atrophy on MRI in normal aging and very mild Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 1997-09-01

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based volumetric measurements of medial temporal lobe (MTL) structures can discriminate between normal elderly control subjects and patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) of moderate to advanced severity. 1 key finding →

Participants: 94 Evidence: low

Racial, ethnic, and cultural differences in dementia caregiving: review and analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. The Gerontologist 1997-06-01

This study provides a review and analysis of the empirical research published since 1985 that has examined the impact of race, culture, and/or ethnicity on the dementia caregiving experience. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. BMJ 1997-09-13

A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution.

Specific hippocampal volume reductions in individuals at risk for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 1997-03-01

Our goal was to ascertain the involvement of the temporal lobe in the preclinical (not yet diagnosable) stages of dementia of the Alzheimer's type (DAT) by using MRI-derived volumes. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 22 Evidence: low

Distinct sites of intracellular production for Alzheimer's disease A beta40/42 amyloid peptides

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Nature medicine 1997-09-01

The Alzheimer amyloid precursor protein (APP) is cleaved by several proteases, the most studied, but still unidentified ones, are those involved in the release of a fragment of APP, the amyloidogenic beta-protein A beta. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The aims of this study were to examine the relationships of hippocampal T2 (HCT2) relaxation time and magnetic resonance (MR)-based hippocampal volume (HCV) to neuronal (ND) and glial cell densities (GD) of hippocampal neuronal cell layers, and to obtain a better clinicopathological definition of hippocampal sclerosis (HS) and end folium sclerosis (EFS). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

There are specific risk factors associated with feeding tube placement in nursing home residents with severe cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

At the baseline evaluation, 256 (62%) of 414 subjects were designated normal; 109 (26%). 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 414 Evidence: moderate

Insulin and cognitive function in an elderly population. The Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Diabetes care 1997-05-01

An increase in postload insulin only in women was associated with a decrease in cognitive function (age-adjusted regression coefficient -0.10 per 50 mU/l insulin; 95% CI -0.16 to -0.04). 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,510 Evidence: low

Wine consumption and dementia in the elderly: a prospective community study in the Bordeaux area

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Revue neurologique 1997-04-01

Alcoholism is a possible cause of dementia, mainly through associated nutritional deficiencies and, rarely, through acute direct toxicity. 1 key finding →

Participants: 3,777 Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease is progressive and irreversible, but pharmacologic therapies for cognitive impairment and nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatments for the behavioral problems associated with dementia can enhance quality of life. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Missense mutations in two related genes, termed presenilin 1 (PS1) and presenilin 2 (PS2), cause dementia in a subset of early-onset familial Alzheimer's disease (FAD) pedigrees. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mutations in the amyloid precursor protein (APP) gene cause early-onset familial Alzheimer disease (AD) by affecting the formation of the amyloid beta (A beta) peptide, the major constituent of AD plaques. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The MMSE scores ranged from 5 to 29 (mean +/- SD = 19.0 +/- 4.8) and the ADAS scores ranged from 7 to 63 (24.3 +/- 10.9). 5 key findings →

Participants: 174 Evidence: low

Evidence: low

Frequency of Stages of Alzheimer-Related Lesions in Different Age Categories

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurobiology of Aging 1997-07-01

This study investigated the frequency and progression of Alzheimer-related lesions, specifically amyloid deposits and intraneuronal neurofibrillary changes, across different age categories. 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