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 6,351–6,375 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 255 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.

The current data provide strong support for continued investigations that examine the risk factors for and biomarkers of AD among diverse populations. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,705 Evidence: low

BACE1 is a key protease controlling the formation of amyloid β, a peptide hypothesized to play a significant role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

For optimal design of anti-amyloid-β (Aβ) and anti-tau clinical trials, we need to better understand the pathophysiological cascade of Aβ- and tau-related processes. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

We developed a robust algorithm to automatically evaluate retinal fundus image that can identify subjects with high WMH burden. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 180 Evidence: low

Verubecestat is a potent BACE1 enzyme inhibitor currently being investigated in Phase III trials for the treatment of mild-to-moderate and prodromal Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In animal models, the incretin hormone GLP-1 affects Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: high

Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine are able to stabilize or slow decline in cognition, function, behavior, and global change. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neither quetiapine nor rivastigmine are effective in the treatment of agitation in people with dementia in institutional care. 4 key findings →

Participants: 93 Evidence: high

AC-1202 was compared to Placebo in several population groups, including: intention-to-treat (ITT), per protocol, and dosage compliant groups. 5 key findings →

Participants: 55 Evidence: high

Our findings suggest a potential protective role of green spaces on mental health (depression and anxiety) in adults, but further studies, especially longitudinal studies, are needed to provide further evidence of these benefits and of the mediation role of exposures like air pollution and noise. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The glymphatic pathway in neurological disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2018-11-01

Furthermore, PET studies have revealed that Aβ accumulates in the healthy brain after a single night of sleep deprivation, suggesting that the human glymphatic pathway might also be primarily active during sleep. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Association between circadian rhythms and neurodegenerative diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2019-02-12

Dysfunction in 24-h circadian rhythms is a common occurrence in ageing adults; however, circadian rhythm disruptions are more severe in people with age-related neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, and Parkinson's disease. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Vision loss and 12-year risk of dementia in older adults: the 3C cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. European journal of epidemiology 2019-01-04

To analyze the longitudinal relationships between vision loss and the risk of dementia in the first 2 years, from 2 to 4 years and beyond 4 years after inclusion and to determine the roles of depressive symptomatology and engagement in cognitively stimulating activities in these associations. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

This prospective, community-based, nested, case-control study used self-reported data (eg, on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, and COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations) from UK-based, adult (≥18 years) users of the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study 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 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