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.

In the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum, the prodromal state of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) precedes AD dementia and identifying MCI individuals at risk of progression is important for clinical management. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Until now, data on the longitudinal trajectories of amyloid accumulation, tau pathology, and brain atrophy over multiple time points remain scarce in DS. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Pathological aggregation of the transactive response DNA-binding protein of 43 kDa (TDP-43) is associated with several neurodegenerative disorders, including ALS, frontotemporal dementia, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In multiple neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), a prominent pathological feature is the aberrant aggregation and inclusion formation of the microtubule-associated protein tau. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Extracellular deposition of amyloid β-protein (Aβ) in amyloid plaques and intracellular accumulation of abnormally phosphorylated τ-protein (p-τ) in neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) represent pathological hallmark lesions of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Identification of multiple immune-related genetic risk factors for sporadic AD (sAD) have put the immune system center stage in mechanisms underlying this disorder. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Disease-modifying treatment trials are increasingly advanced to the prodromal or preclinical phase of Alzheimer's disease (AD), and inclusion criteria are based on biomarkers rather than clinical symptoms. 4 key findings →

Participants: 13 Evidence: low

Biomarker-guided clustering of Alzheimer's disease clinical syndromes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurobiology of Aging 2019-09-10

Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuropathology is extremely heterogeneous, and the evolution from preclinical to mild cognitive impairment until dementia is driven by interacting genetic/biological mechanisms not fully captured by current clinical/research criteria. 2 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Axonal degeneration, synaptic dysfunction, astroglial activation, and altered tau metabolism are involved already in preclinical AD. 1 key finding →

Participants: 770 Evidence: low

Objective subtle cognitive difficulties predict future amyloid accumulation and neurodegeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2019-12-30

Relative to CN participants, Obj-SCD was associated with faster amyloid accumulation and selective vulnerability of entorhinal cortical thinning, whereas MCI was associated with faster entorhinal and hippocampal atrophy. 5 key findings →

Participants: 747 Evidence: low

Tau Positron-Emission Tomography in Former National Football League Players

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2019-04-10

A group of living former NFL players with cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms had higher tau levels measured by PET than controls in brain regions that are affected by CTE and did not have elevated amyloid-beta levels. 2 key findings →

Participants: 26 Evidence: low

NFL discriminated patients from controls with an area under the curve of 0.914 (95% CI, 0.843-0.984; p < 0.001) (cut-off: 76.46 pg/mL; 94% sensitivity, 76.9% specificity). 5 key findings →

Participants: 80 Evidence: low

We investigated the effect of baseline Aβ, sex, and APOE on longitudinal tau accumulation in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in clinically normal older adults. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Plasma tau was higher in patients with AD than cognitively normal controls (P < .001, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.79) similarly to CSF tau and CSF P-tau and was negatively correlated with cognition in AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 68 Evidence: low

Cognigram was piloted in the Emergency Department, Family Medicine, and Geriatric Psychiatry clinics: 58 adults (23 men, 35 women), 67.9 ± 9.8 years (range 43-91), completed the Cognigram and 5-item liking survey. 5 key findings →

Participants: 58 Evidence: low

Mutations in presenilin 1 (PSEN1), presenilin 2 (PSEN2), and amyloid precursor protein (APP) are major genetic causes of early-onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 68 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