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.

The findings identify resident subgroups at especially high risk of poor oral health who can be targeted in quality improvement efforts related to oral hygiene; they also indicate need to improve the accuracy of how MDS items are completed. 3 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

Exercise training is an effective means for promoting white matter and hippocampal recovery and improving reaction time in children treated with cranial radiation for brain tumors. 3 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: low

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a common psychiatric disorder for which available medications are often not effective. 4 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Plasma levels of Aβ oligomers could be assessed using MDS, which might be a simple, noninvasive, and accessible assay for evaluating brain amyloid deposition related to AD pathology. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Preliminary findings suggest that the NIH Toolbox has the advantage of showing the strongest overall clustering and alignment with standardized paper-and-pencil tasks. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

There is a considerable delay in the diagnosis of dementia, which may reduce the effectiveness of available treatments. 1 key finding →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Retinal amyloid pathology and proof-of-concept imaging trial in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. JCI insight 2017-08-17

The geometric distribution and increased burden of retinal amyloid pathology in AD, together with the feasibility to noninvasively detect discrete retinal amyloid deposits in living patients, may lead to a practical approach for large-scale AD diagnosis and monitoring. 5 key findings →

Participants: 37 Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease is characterized by the deposition of amyloid-β as extracellular plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau as intracellular neurofibrillary tangles. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is characterized by acute neurological dysfunction and associated with the development of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

AimTo evaluate visual dysfunction and its correlation with structural changes in the retina in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).MethodsPatients with AD (n=24) and controls (n=24) underwent evaluation of visual acuity (VA), color vision (using the Farnsworth and L'Anthony desaturated (D) 15 color tests), and contrast sensitivity vision (CSV; using the Pelli-Robson chart and CSV-1000E test) to measure visual dysfunction. 5 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: low

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study provides such information but does not routinely aggregate results that are of interest to clinicians specialising in neurological conditions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The concomitant decline in stroke and dementia incidence rates may depict how successful stroke prevention has targeted shared risk factors of both conditions, especially at advanced ages where such risk factors are highly prevalent. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Experimental data suggest that the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) dynamic is involved in the clearance of beta-amyloid, a key event in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: low

Hyperphosphorylated tau protein deposits and, inflammatory processes are characteristic components of Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology. 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 27,780 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