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.

We conclude that variations in morphologies among microglial cells, and cells of macrophage lineage, can help guide future work connecting neuroinflammatory mechanisms with specific neurodegenerative disease subtypes. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The consensus criteria for the diagnosis and classification of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) have served as an important tool in studying this group of disorders. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease marked by deficits in episodic memory, working memory (WM), and executive function. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is recognized to have a long presymptomatic period, during which there is progressive accumulation of molecular pathology, followed by inexorable neuronal damage. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is a DAP12-associated receptor expressed in microglia, macrophages, and other myeloid-derived cells. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We hypothesized that de novo variants (DNV) might participate in the genetic determinism of sporadic early-onset Alzheimer disease (EOAD, onset before 65 years). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The original validation study for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) suggests a cutoff score of 26; however, this may be too stringent for older adults, particularly for those with less education. 4 key findings →

Participants: 205 Evidence: low

Spectrum of cognition short of dementia: Framingham Heart Study and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology 2015-10-09

We quantitated risk of progression to dementia in elderly persons without dementia from 2 population-based studies, the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), aged 70 to 89 years at enrollment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Medicare's Annual Wellness Visit in a Large Health Care Organization: Who Is Using It?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Annals of Internal Medicine 2015-10-05

This benefit is being offered at no cost to eligible Medicare recipients; however, recent reports suggest that few persons are taking advantage of it (1–3) and who is using it is unclear. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Small vessel disease encompasses lacunar stroke, white matter hyperintensities, lacunes and microbleeds. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that is increasingly used in research and clinical settings to enhance the effects of cognitive training. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Most people in Germany die in institutions; the most common place of death is still the hospital, where more than half of all deaths take place. 2 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: low

Community-based services are important for improving outcomes for individuals with dementia and their caregivers. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Use of in-depth data, consensus methods and theoretical understanding of the intervention components produced an evidence-based intervention for further testing in end-of-life care in advanced dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 29 Evidence: low

Alterations in learning processes and the neural circuitry that supports fear conditioning and extinction represent mechanisms through which trauma exposure might influence risk for psychopathology. 2 key findings →

Participants: 94 Evidence: low

The combination of decreased amyloid β42 (Aβ42) and increased total tau proteins (T-Tau) and phosphorylated tau (P-Tau) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has recently been considered as a biological diagnostic criterion of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

This study strengthens the potential of neurogranin as an AD CSF biomarker, which now needs validation in larger studies. 3 key findings →

Participants: 29 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 27,780 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