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 6,476–6,500 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 260 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.

We identified 107,931 beneficiaries with ≥1 month as an AL resident and 323,766 beneficiaries with ≥1 month as a LSNH resident with dementia, including 1,923,867 person-months and 4,984,405 person-months, respectively. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

There were 2427 new residents of assisted living who were matched to 9708 home care recipients [mean (SD) age 85.5 (6.02) years, 72% female]. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Eighty six thousand three hundred ninety-six beneficiaries were included (43,198 beneficiaries with ADRD and 43,198 beneficiaries without ADRD). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Sociodemographic and health characteristics across ethnoracial groups included in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center sample (NACC) were compared to the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study (HRS). 4 key findings →

Participants: 36,639 Evidence: low

This retrospective cohort study described changes in all-cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs in dementia patients newly diagnosed with psychosis. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Diffusion MRI of Gray Matter Microstructural Profiles in Healthy Aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews 2026-08-06

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is a non-invasive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition technique that can provide detailed information about brain microstructure. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In pre-clinical Alzheimer’s disease, cerebral amyloid-β (Aβ) deposition precedes symptoms; Aβ-targeted therapies may have maximum benefits at this stage. 1 key finding →

Participants: 543 Evidence: moderate

18F-MK-6240 (18F-labeled 6-(fluoro)-3-(1H-pyrrolo[2,3-c]pyridin-1-yl)isoquinolin-5-amine) is a highly selective, subnanomolar-affinity PET tracer for imaging neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

A deep learning framework combining 3D CNN and LRP algorithms can be used with tau PET images to identify informative features for AD classification and may have application for early detection during prodromal stages of AD. 4 key findings →

Participants: 132 Evidence: moderate

Guide to Preventive Cardiology for Women

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Circulation 1999-05-11

C oronary heart disease (CHD) is the single leading cause of death and a significant cause of morbidity among American women. 1 Risk factors for CHD in women are well documented. 2 Compelling data from epidemiological studies and randomized clinical trials show that CHD is largely preventable.

Participants: 2,763 Evidence: high

Recent data suggest gut microbiota dysbiosis as a contributing factor in neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson's Disease (PD) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD), and these pathologies may manifest via the microbiota-gut-brain-axis, which comprises bidirectional communication through neuroimmune, neuroendocrine, and direct neural pathways such as the vagus nerve. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal 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