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.

Association between periodontal disease and Alzheimer's disease: a scoping review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2025-10-15

PD may be a modifiable risk factor for AD, and periodontal interventions could contribute to AD prevention and management. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 52 Evidence: moderate

aECAD was associated with significantly worse scores in processing speed (β = -0.19, p = 0.004) and executive function (β = -0.20, p = 0.009) domains after controlling for age, sex, education, race, and ethnicity. 3 key findings →

Participants: 182 Evidence: low

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and amyloid- and tau-PET-positive status demonstrated higher p-tau217. 5 key findings →

Participants: 233 Evidence: low

Both Mann-Whitney tests and ANCOVA found significant differences between groups racialized as AA or NWH with respect to global 11[C]-Pittsburgh Compound B (PiB) standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR), cortical thickness values, p-tau181, and p-tau231 values (p < 0.05). 3 key findings →

Participants: 260 Evidence: low

Optimizing timing and cost-effective use of plasma biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2025-08-20

When benchmarked against amyloid PET, plasma biomarker-based stratification achieves an optimal balance between diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness. 5 key findings →

Participants: 143 Evidence: low

Significant interaction effects were observed: MoCA (β = -1.86×10-4, P = 0.006) and PACC (β = -4.0×10-5, P = 0.004), indicating HDL moderates the negative association between NfL and cognition. 3 key findings →

Participants: 417 Evidence: low

Interquartile range differences in amyloid beta 42/40, percent phosphorylated tau 217 (%p-tau217), and Amyloid Probability Score 2 were associated with 1.29 (P = 0.09), 1.38 (P < 0.001), and 1.20 (P = 0.05) increases, respectively, in the hazard of progression from A- to A+ and 0.27 (P = 0.16), 0.50 (P = 0.007), and 0.28 (P = 0.15) Centiloid/year increases, respectively, in annual rate of amyloid PET change. 5 key findings →

Participants: 290 Evidence: low

Using a panel of biomarkers was significantly better at predicting disease stage compared with p-tau217 alone; however, the difference was dependent upon p-tau217 assay. 5 key findings →

Participants: 387 Evidence: low

Among all participants (mean age 66.7 ± 6.5 years, 100% non-Hispanic White), 451 (6.6%) were using statins at baseline. 5 key findings →

Participants: 564 Evidence: low

LATE-NC Stage 3: a diagnostic rubric to differentiate severe LATE-NC from FTLD-TDP

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2025-04-28

A diagnostic rubric is required to distinguish between limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy neuropathologic change (LATE-NC) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP-43 inclusions (FTLD-TDP). 3 key findings →

Participants: 514 Evidence: low

Of 162 034 eligible Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 85.0 [7.9] years; 94 304 female [58.2%]), 51 191 (31.6%) were attributed to MSSP ACO. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 162,034 Evidence: moderate

Novel plasma assays enabled accurate blood-based biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases with minimally invasive options for clinical use. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,232 Evidence: low

Alzheimer Disease, Vascular Disease, and Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability Biomarkers in Middle-Aged Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2025-10-06

The findings suggest that permeability of the blood-brain barrier is linked to AD pathophysiology, contributes to cerebrovascular lesions observed on MRI, and is associated with neuroinflammation in middle age. 5 key findings →

Participants: 488 Evidence: low

Observational studies and pilot trials suggest that metformin may help prevent cognitive decline in neurodegenerative disorders. 3 key findings →

Participants: 326 Evidence: high

↑ 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