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.

There is accumulating evidence that synaptic loss precedes neuronal loss and correlates best with impaired memory formation in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 52 Evidence: low

Mid-life obesity is an established risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, whereas late-life obesity has been proposed as a protective state. 4 key findings →

Participants: 162 Evidence: low

Cardiovascular risk factors, deregulated blood glucose, uric acid metabolism, and inflammation were identified as risk markers for faster disease progression. 2 key findings →

Participants: 135 Evidence: moderate

CSF biomarkers and amyloid positron emission tomography reflect different aspects of Alzheimer's disease brain pathology, and therefore, less-than-perfect correspondence is expected. 1 key finding →

Participants: 200 Evidence: low

The forms of tau in CSF and plasma are distinct, but in each specimen type, the levels of certain fragments are increased in AD. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

Blood-brain barrier opening in Alzheimer's disease using MR-guided focused ultrasound

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Nature communications 2018-07-25

Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound in combination with intravenously injected microbubbles has been shown to transiently open the blood-brain barrier, and reduce beta-amyloid and tau pathology in animal models of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Further investigations are needed to elaborate how the concept of a key contact person could be integrated with existing case management approaches and how the independence and autonomy of people with dementia can be strengthened when formal care needs to be accessed and used. 1 key finding →

Participants: 261 Evidence: low

Abnormal CSF amyloid-β42 and tau levels in hip fracture patients without dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. PloS one 2018-09-25

Among the hip fracture patients, 88.6% of the cognitively normal (Clinical Dementia Rating-CDR 0; n = 70) and 98.8% with mild cognitive impairment (CDR 0.5; n = 81) fell in the abnormal biomarker categories by the A/T/N classification. 3 key findings →

Participants: 70 Evidence: low

Familial Alzheimer's disease (FAD) is characterized by a positive family history of dementia and typically occurs at an early age with an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance. 2 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

In patients treated up to 36 months, amyloid plaque levels continued to decrease in a dose- and time-dependent manner, with levels in the 10 mg/kg fixed-dose group reaching and remaining below a quantitative cut-point discriminating a positive/negative scan. 1 Reduced amyloid plaque levels were also observed in patients switched from placebo to aducanumab during the LTE. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

Genome-wide association study identifies two loci influencing plasma neurofilament light levels

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. BMC medical genomics 2018-05-10

GWAS found the associations of two single nucleotide polymorphisms (rs7943454 and rs640476) with plasma NFL at suggestive levels. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 179 Evidence: moderate

In the initial kindred of ten affected Italian individuals (mean age of disease onset 59·8 years [SD 8·7]), we detected significant linkage of Parkinson's disease to chromosome 14 and nominated LRP10 as the disease-causing gene. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Among 104 537 individuals, the absolute 10-year risk of Alzheimer disease in 3017 women and men who were carriers of the APOE ɛ44 genotype was, respectively, 7% and 6% at age 60-69 years, 16% and 12% at age 70-79 years, and 24% and 19% at age 80 years and older. 1 key finding →

Participants: 537 Evidence: low

We report the clinical, neuroimaging, and neuropathologic characteristics of 2 patients who developed early onset dementia after a moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Intronic GGGGCC repeat expansions in C9orf72 are the most common known cause of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which are characterised by degeneration of cortical and motor neurons, respectively. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

There is no disease-modifying treatment currently available for AD, one of the more impacting neurodegenerative diseases affecting more than 47.5 million people worldwide. 1 key finding →

Participants: 200 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 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