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.

How experienced psychiatrists view the capacity of patients with Alzheimer disease for consenting to research and for appointing a proxy may be related to the patients' conceptualization and memory functioning. 1 key finding →

Participants: 77 Evidence: high

The clusters of significant depression and compensation were further used as volumetric regions of interest (ROIs) in a brain interregional correlation analysis in each prodromal AD subgroup to explore metabolic connectivity. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Targeting norepinephrine in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2013-04-29

Advances in AD biomarker research have demonstrated changes in amyloid-beta (Aβ), brain metabolism and other pathophysiologies prior to the onset of memory loss, with some markers possibly changing one or two decades earlier. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Ushering in the study and treatment of preclinical Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2013-06-11

Researchers have begun to characterize the subtle biological and cognitive processes that precede the clinical onset of Alzheimer disease (AD), and to set the stage for accelerated evaluation of experimental treatments to delay the onset, reduce the risk of, or completely prevent clinical decline. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The amyloid precursor protein: a biochemical enigma in brain development, function and disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. FEBS letters 2013-05-16

For 20 years the amyloid cascade hypothesis of Alzheimer disease (AD) has placed the amyloid-β peptide (Aβ), formed from the amyloid precursor protein (APP), centre stage in the process of neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Acetylated tau neuropathology in sporadic and hereditary tauopathies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. The American journal of pathology 2013-08-01

We have recently shown acetylation of tau at lysine residue 280 (AC-K280) to be a disease-specific modification in Alzheimer disease (AD), corticobasal degeneration, and progressive supranuclear palsy, likely representing a major regulatory tau modification. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Processing of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) by γ-secretase results in generation of Aβ peptides of different lengths ranging from 51 to 30 residues. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We have previously shown that beta-band EEG activity is related to attentional modulation in the visual system of cats and humans. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In 3T MRI visually inspected by experts, quantification of hippocampal volume and signal can increase the detection of hippocampal sclerosis in 28% of patients with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. 1 key finding →

Participants: 125 Evidence: low

Vascular factors are thought to contribute to the development of disease pathology in neurodegenerative dementia such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 47 Evidence: low

The Northwestern University SuperAging Project recruits community dwellers over the age of 80 who have unusually high performance on tests of episodic memory. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

Risk factors for the progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Clinics in geriatric medicine 2013-11-01

The increasing prevalence of cognitive impairment among the older adult population warrants attention to the identification of practices that may minimize the progression of early forms of cognitive impairment, including the transitional stage of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), to permanent stages of dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Advances in automatic text classification have been necessitated by the rapid increase in the availability of digital documents. 5 key findings →

Participants: 21 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