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.

Internal consistency of the ACE-III was strong (McDonald's ω = 0.889). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,265 Evidence: low

Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves differentiating PSP and controls were improved by PC1 subtraction in the frontal white matter (0.54 to 0.67; P = 0.002) and subcortical (0.69 to 0.87; P < 0.001) regions. 4 key findings →

Participants: 141 Evidence: moderate

Accurate estimation of Alzheimer's disease (AD) severity from structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remains difficult, as disease-associated anatomical alterations are often subtle and publicly available datasets are typically too small to support robust deep learning model training. 1 key finding →

Participants: 214 Evidence: moderate

Recent Findings Recent observational data in adults with Down syndrome indicate that obstructive sleep apnoea is associated with adverse cardiometabolic, mortality and Alzheimer disease outcomes. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

AD patients exhibited increased expression of pyroptosis-related genes, supporting the involvement of pyroptosis in neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

IMAGING OF THE BONE ARCHITECTURE IN THE CONTEXT OF ALZHEIMER DISEASE

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Osteoarthritis Imaging 2026-01-01

Female Psen1 mutation(L166P) mice were found to have reductions in whole-body mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content as early as one month and a sustained bone phenotype with age with loss in cortical and trabecular properties compared to age-and gendermatched wildtype control mice, whereas male mice did not (Fig.1A-C). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

TDP-43: [GU]-ardian of the transcriptome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Molecular Neurodegeneration 2026-05-14

TDP-43 is a ubiquitously expressed, primarily nuclear DNA/RNA-binding protein implicated in neurodegenerative diseases including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

TDP-43 pathology is a hallmark of fatal neurodegenerative disorders, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43-encephalopathy (LATE). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Methylglyoxal (MG), a reactive dicarbonyl metabolite associated with diabetes and metabolic disorders, contributes to carbonyl stress, neuroinflammation, and Alzheimer-like neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A major hurdle in Alzheimer disease research is the failure of mouse models to capture complexities of the human brain that contributes to repeated clinical trial failure. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

After adjusting for baseline scores via ANCOVA, the experimental group demonstrated significantly higher post-intervention outcomes compared to the control group (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →

Participants: 58 Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease (PD-MCI) can affect several cognitive domains, including attention, working memory, executive functions, language, visuospatial skills, and episodic memory, resulting in a progressive reduction of autonomy and an increased risk of dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Although a substantial proportion of TG participants achieved high MI accuracy values, statistical analyses revealed no cognitive improvements specific to TG, suggesting limited efficacy of the MI-based protocol compared to classical cognitive stimulation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Individuals with Alzheimer’s dementia exhibited poorer nutritional status (EdFED: 8.0 vs. 2.0; NUFFE: 10.0 vs. 7.0; both p < 0.001) and lower adherence to the Mediterranean diet (6.0 vs. 7.0; p = 0.050). 3 key findings →

Participants: 60 Evidence: low

DSD occurred in 680 patients (39.8%). Compared with dementia alone, DSD was associated with higher PAS scores (5.3 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001), poorer functional status (FIM 48.6 vs. 57.8, p < 0.001) and more frequent in-hospital falls (29.9% vs. 17.5%, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,709 Evidence: low

Participants actively contemplated ACP following their parents' death, referring to their end-of-life caregiving experiences as guideposts for issues to anticipate and opportunities to enhance receipt of healthcare during serious illness or incapacitation. 5 key findings →

Participants: 32 Evidence: low

In January 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented the Patient-Driven Groupings Model (PDGM), the most substantial revision to Medicare's home health (HH) prospective payment system since its introduction in 2000. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Grip strength modifies the association between blood-based alzheimer's biomarkers and cognitive function

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. GeroScience 2026-04-11

Blood-based biomarkers are increasingly used to characterize Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related pathology, yet substantial heterogeneity exists in how biomarker burden relates to cognitive performance. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 348 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 27,380 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