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.

Polygenic score for Alzheimer's disease identifies differential atrophy in hippocampal subfield volumes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. PloS one 2022-07-13

Hippocampal subfield atrophy is a prime structural change in the brain, associated with cognitive aging and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,086 Evidence: low

Clinical genetic diagnosis was achieved in 7 of 50 (14%) of the patients, with a further 8 patients (16%) found to have established risk factors which may have contributed to their EOD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 50 Evidence: moderate

We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of human extreme longevity (EL), defined as surviving past the 99th survival percentile, by aggregating data from four centenarian studies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,304 Evidence: low

Using the data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), we performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) between 565,373 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and 16 key AD biomarkers from 1,576 subjects at four visits. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,576 Evidence: low

We identified 7 functional variants in APP/PSENs in 8 patients, including 1 APP mutation (p. Val715Met), 3 PSEN1 mutations (p. Phe177Ser; p. Arg377Met; p. Ile416Thr), and 3 PSEN2 mutations (p. Glu24Lys; p. Gly34Ser; p. Met239Thr). 5 key findings →

Participants: 34 Evidence: low

The z-scores of perfusion-weighted images of both tracers showed high correlations across the brain, especially in the frontal and parietal lobes, which were the brain regions with pronounced perfusion deficit in the patient group (R = 0.83 ± 0.08; range, 0.61-0.95). 4 key findings →

Participants: 64 Evidence: moderate

Percentage of visually tau-positive scans increased with amyloid-beta deposition measured in 18F-florbetaben Centiloids (CL) (7.7% (<36 CL), 80% (>83 CL)). 18F-PI-2620 standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) was correlated with increased 18F-florbetaben CL in several regions of interest. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 74 Evidence: low

Cognition and brain health among older adults in Iceland: the AGES-Reykjavik study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. GeroScience 2022-08-17

The paper aimed to compare how factors previously identified as predictive factors for cognitive decline and dementia related to cognitive performance on the one hand and brain health on the other. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,707 Evidence: low

We observed that greater social isolation was related to increased anxiety in people with cognitive impairment (coefficients = 0.7242, t = 2.51, p = 0.015), adjusting for severity of cognitive impairment, race, pain, depression, activities of daily living, and instrumental activities of daily living. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,343 Evidence: low

TDP-43 Pathology Exacerbates Cognitive Decline in Primary Age-Related Tauopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2022-07-11

Concomitant LATE-NC and vascular pathology were equally common, and cognition was equally impaired, in PART (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] = 24.8 ± 6.9) and ADNC (MMSE = 24.2 ± 6.0). 5 key findings →

Participants: 45 Evidence: low

Trends in US Medicare Decedents' Diagnosis of Dementia From 2004 to 2017

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. JAMA health forum 2022-04-01

Among the included 3 515 329 Medicare fee-for-service decedents, when adjusted for age and sex, the percentage of older decedents with an ADRD diagnosis increased from 34.7% in 2004 to 47.2% in 2017. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

P‐tau181 in CSF and plasma predicted tau accumulation (r > 0.36, P < .001), even in AD‐continuum individuals with normal baseline tau‐PET (A+T–; r > 0.37, P < .05). 4 key findings →

Participants: 163 Evidence: low

Clinical trials testing tau-targeting therapies may benefit from using fluid biomarkers to recruit individuals at risk of tau aggregation. 1 key finding →

Participants: 163 Evidence: low

Plasma NfL levels might be a promising biomarker for neurodegeneration to discriminate cognitive decline due to AD from other conditions causing cognitive impairment in prodromal stages. 1 key finding →

Participants: 110 Evidence: low

Plasma AD biomarkers vary significantly in association with common medical comorbidities as well as ethnicity. 5 key findings →

Participants: 445 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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