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.

Frontotemporal lobar degenerations are a group of disorders characterized by circumscribed degeneration of the frontal and temporal lobes and diverse histopathologic features. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Frontotemporal dementia with parkinsonism (FTDP) is a major neurodegenerative syndrome, particularly for those with symptoms beginning before age 65 years. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The neurofibrillary-tangles (NTFs), characteristic of tauopathies including Alzheimer's-disease (AD), are the pathological features which correlate best with dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The use of positive modulators of PLA2 (especially of cPLA2 and iPLA2) or supplementation with dietary lipid compounds (e.g., arachidonic acid) in combination with cognitive training could be a valuable therapeutic strategy for cognitive enhancement in early-stage AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Prodromal clinical manifestations of neuropathologically confirmed Lewy body disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2008-11-20

The mild cognitive impairment (MCI) stage of dementia with Lewy bodies (MCI-DLB) has not yet been defined, but is likely to differ in the MCI stage of Alzheimer's disease (MCI-AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Although not significant, results as to the effectiveness of such an intervention to improve family satisfaction with end-of-life care are encouraging. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Content of advance directives for individuals with advanced dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of aging and health 2008-08-01

For advance directives to better reflect a person's wishes, discussions with individuals and families about advance directives should include a range of care issues in the settings of terminal illness, persistent vegetative state or end-stage illness. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Our results indicated that patient diagnosis (cancer or dementia) and caregiver appraisals (stressfulness of functional impairment and positive aspects of caregiving) were not predictors on any of our well-being outcomes. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Volumetric MRI scans from 26 women with repeated episodes of childhood sexual abuse and 17 healthy female comparison subjects (ages 18-22 years) were analyzed for sensitive period effects on hippocampal and amygdala volume, frontal cortex gray matter volume and corpus callosum area. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A dysregulated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) has been implicated in major depressive disorder and most commonly used animal models of depression have been shown to elevate circulating levels of plasma corticosterone. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Children with prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) show deficits in verbal learning and spatial memory, as well as abnormal hippocampal development. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Hippocampus segmentation in MR images using atlas registration, voxel classification, and graph cuts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. NeuroImage 2008-08-12

Since hippocampal volume has been found to be an early biomarker for Alzheimer's disease, there is large interest in automated methods to accurately, robustly, and reproducibly extract the hippocampus from MRI data. 3 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