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

Showing 5,801–5,825 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 233 of 1086) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

Alzheimer's disease is characterized by the combined presence of amyloid plaques and tau pathology, the latter being correlated with the progression of clinical symptoms. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This was a retrospective cohort study to examine differences in health service utilization and outcomes between FFS and MA patients in SNFs following hip fracture hospitalization during the period January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015, and followed up until December 31, 2015. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Beneficiaries included 2,713,573 White, 251,958 Black, 196,845 Hispanic, 95,719 Asian, 11,727 American Indian/Alaska Native, and 63,795 of other race/ethnicity. 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 3,333,617 Evidence: moderate

Research on Multiple Chronic Conditions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Medical Care 2014-02-24

This issue of Medical Care includes a theoretical framework for conducting research on MCC, a review of existing MCC research methods and methodological gaps to be addressed, and the results of several research studies addressing MCC. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 110,000 Evidence: high

's ≥ 0.75). Both markers identified Braak stage V-VI levels with similarly high performance (entorhinal SUVR, area under the curve [AUC] = 0.92 [95% CI 0.91-0.93]; temporal meta-ROI SUVR, AUC = 0.91 [95% CI 0.90-0.92]; plasma p-tau217, AUC = 0.90 [95% CI 0.89-0.91]), but PET outperformed plasma p-tau217 in identifying high/intermediate ADNCs (entorhinal ROI, AUC = 0.94 [95% CI 0.94-0.95]; temporal meta-ROI AUC = 0.94 [95% CI 0.94-0.95]; plasma p-tau217, AUC = 0.89 [95% CI 0.88-0.90]). 2 key findings →

Participants: 56 Evidence: moderate

APOE ε4 and Accelerated Cognitive Decline Among Cognitively Healthy Middle-Aged and Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-03-06

Among 4392 participants (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [7.8] years; 2359 [53.7%] women), 723 (16.5%) were APOE ε4 heterozygotes and 33 (0.8%) were APOE ε4 homozygotes. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,392 Evidence: moderate

Disclosure (N = 194) and non-disclosure (N = 180) groups did not differ on IGT-AD (mean disclosure-non-disclosure difference [MD] at 6 weeks: -1.5, p = 0.14; 9 months: -1.2, p = 0.35; 15 months: -2.0, p = 0.07), IES-R (MD at 6 weeks: 0.00, p = 0.98; 9 months: 0.01, p = 0.84; 15 months: 0.03, p = 0.64), or change in secondary outcomes. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 194 Evidence: high

14 IPD-Work studies were assessed and six studies were excluded due to missing outcome data and unavailable data for pooling, resulting in the inclusion of eight studies with 124 909 participants. 5 key findings →

Participants: 909 Evidence: low

The overall PAF for the 14 modifiable risk factors was 59.5% (95% CI = 58.5-60.5). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,949 Evidence: moderate

We included 394,255 individuals including 184 incident cases of CD and 459 of UC after median follow-up of 13.6 years (4,889,910 person-years). 5 key findings →

Participants: 394,255 Evidence: moderate

Among ACHIEVE participants in the top quartile of predicted risk, 3-year cognitive decline in the hearing intervention was 61.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.7%-94.1%) slower than the control. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,692 Evidence: moderate

Fit of the models to the data was adequate for general cognitive performance (root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.03; comparative fit index (CFI)=0.94; standardised root mean residual (SRMR)=0.05), language (RMSEA=0.02; CFI=0.95; SRMR=0.05) and good for memory (RMSEA=0.05; CFI=0.99; SRMR=0.02) and executive functioning (RMSEA=0.03; CFI=0.98; SRMR=0.03). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,878 Evidence: moderate

Of the 62 caregivers approached, 60 enrolled (96.7%), and 54 completed the study (90% retention). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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