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.

Transitions to long-term and residential care among older Canadians

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Health reports 2018-05-16

On Census Day, 1.4% of the study sample were living in a nursing home, 1.2% in a seniors' residence, 7.1% in a private dwelling with additional family, and 90.3% in a private dwelling. 5 key findings →

Participants: 81,411 Evidence: low

A total of 2,098 MAPD patients meeting study inclusion/exclusion criteria and with a PA for alirocumab were identified between March 1, 2016 and February 28, 2017. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,730 Evidence: moderate

Ten participants with AD (5 male and 5 female; mean [SD] age, 72.7 [6.3] years; 10 [100%] β-amyloid positive) were compared with 11 participants who were cognitively normal (5 male and 6 female; mean [SD] age, 72.9 [8.7] years; 11 [100%] β-amyloid negative). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

An ERICA score of 2 or greater indicates probable AD with high diagnostic accuracy. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article. 3 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

Global quantitative analysis of the human brain proteome in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Scientific data 2018-03-13

Patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) often have overlap in clinical presentation and brain neuropathology suggesting that these two diseases share common underlying mechanisms. 1 key finding →

Participants: 80 Evidence: low

In vivo quantification of neurofibrillary tangles with [ 18 F]MK-6240

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2018-07-31

This evaluation shows an [ 18 F]MK-6240 distribution in concordance with postmortem studies and that simplified quantitative approaches such as the SUVR offer valid estimates of neurofibrillary tangle load 90 min post injection. [ 18 F]MK-6240 is a promising tau tracer with the potential to be applied in the disease diagnosis and assessment of therapeutic interventions. 2 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

Networks of tau distribution in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2018-02-01

Second, to investigate if regions of high tau burden are associated with functional connectivity networks, we extracted the region with the maximum z-value in each of the generated tau pathology networks and used them as seeds in a subsequent resting-state functional MRI analysis, conducted in a group of healthy adults (n = 26) who were part of the 1000 Functional Connectomes Project. 4 key findings →

Participants: 26 Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease is increasingly considered a large-scale network disconnection syndrome, associated with progressive aggregation of pathological proteins, cortical atrophy, and functional disconnections between brain regions. 4 key findings →

Participants: 49 Evidence: low

Our study confirms the strong link between hearing status and the risk of disability, dementia, and depression. 4 key findings →

Participants: 3,777 Evidence: low

A Deep Learning Model to Predict a Diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease by Using 18 F-FDG PET of the Brain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Radiology 2018-11-06

By using fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET of the brain, a deep learning algorithm developed for early prediction of Alzheimer disease achieved 82% specificity at 100% sensitivity, an average of 75.8 months prior to the final diagnosis. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,002 Evidence: low

We built and validated a deep learning algorithm predicting the individual diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment who will convert to AD (c-MCI) based on a single cross-sectional brain structural MRI scan. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

In the field of computer-aided Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis, jointly identifying brain diseases and predicting clinical scores using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have attracted increasing attention since these two tasks are highly correlated. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,984 Evidence: low

While post mortem studies have identified the major cell types and functional systems affected in Alzheimer's disease (AD) the initial sites and molecular characteristics of pathology are still unclear. 1 key finding →

Participants: 56 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