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.

Adaptation and Validation of Brief Tablet-Based Cognitive Assessment Tool in Uganda

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-23

For TabCAT tests, there were no notable floor or ceiling effects, and test scores were associated with age and education as expected. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 563 Evidence: moderate

Integrated genomic meta-analysis identifies cell-type-specific signatures and targets in early Alzheimer's disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-23

Cellular mechanisms in early Alzheimers disease (AD) remain poorly understood despite generation of extensive observational multiomic data. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

INTRODUCTIONThe number of people living with dementia in many African countries is anticipated to treble by 2050. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Distinct lipid mediator profiles in brain and liver tissues in Alzheimer's disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-23

INTRODUCTIONInflammation plays a central role in Alzheimers Disease (AD), with oxylipins, endocannabinoids, and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) acting as potent modulators. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Multimorbidity and Medication Order Patterns in Skilled Nursing Facilities: A Real-World Evidence Study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-23

BackgroundMultimorbidity is common among U.S. skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) residents and complicates pharmacologic management, yet real-world evidence on treatment patterns in this population remains limited. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alcohol use disorder accelerates age-related cognitive decline

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-23

ObjectiveTo investigate whether a lifetime history of DSM-5 AUD and correlated indices of alcohol consumption are associated with accelerated age-related cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,421 Evidence: moderate

Elevation in Plasma p-tau217 Concentrations Among Blood Donors: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-24

Plasma p-tau217 concentrations were positively associated with plasma TNF- (Kendalls {tau} = 0.339; P < .001) and IL-6 (Kendalls {tau} = 0.310; P < .001) concentrations. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Study of Ancestry, Health, Environment, and Late-Life Neurodegeneration (SAHEL)

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-24

INTRODUCTIONDementia research in sub-Saharan Africa remains limited despite rapid population aging and substantial ancestral, environmental, and vascular diversity. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 102 Evidence: moderate

Over a median follow-up of 13 years, 5,304 participants developed dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 151,832 Evidence: low

MTD showed excellent discrimination of CU versus MCI/DEM (AUC=.89; 95% CI=.87-.92), and discriminability remained high for CU versus MCI (AUC=.88; 95% CI=.85-.92). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,224 Evidence: moderate

A neurocognitive speech taxonomy for voice biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-25

NST showed stable cross-cohort structure (Mantel r = 0.71-0.77) and differentiated MCI (d = -0.39) and AD biomarker status (d = -0.23). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,479 Evidence: moderate

Public awareness of the hearing loss-dementia link and self-reported behavioral changes in middle- to older-aged Canadians

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-26

Hearing loss is a potential risk factor for dementia, but public awareness of this link and its behavioral implications remain poorly understood. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Alzheimer's and Aducanumab: Unjust Profits and False Hopes

⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. The Hastings Center report 2021-06-23

Accelerated approval of aducanumab for mild Alzheimer's by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on June 7, 2021, has generated substantial medical, scientific, and ethical controversy. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

We investigated associations of neighborhood disadvantage with Alzheimer's Disease (AD)-related outcomes by biological and social factors in at-risk older adults. 1,880 U.S. POINTER participants with Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and cognition (PACC) were included. 868 had amyloid, tau PET, white matter hyperintensities (WMH), and/or gray matter volumes. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The exposome factors, such as diet, lifestyle, microbiome, chemical exposures and social exposome, shapes human health beyond genetic influences, but the mechanisms remain only partially understood. 1 key finding →

Participants: 449 Evidence: low

At Home Versus in a Nursing Home: Long-Term Care Settings and Marginal Utility

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Not indexed 2023

Marginal utility of financial resources when needing long-term care, and the related incentives for precautionary savings and insurance, may vary significantly by whether one receives care at home or in a nursing home. 5 key findings →

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