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.

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) is an innate immune receptor that promotes phagocytosis by myeloid cells such as microglia and macrophages. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Improved prediction of progression to Alzheimer's Disease (AD) among older individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is of high clinical and societal importance. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Diet, nutrition and the ageing brain: current evidence and new directions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 2018-01-10

Globally populations are ageing. By 2050, it is estimated that there will be two billion people aged 60 years or over, of which 131 million are projected to be affected by dementia, while depression is predicted to be the second leading cause of disability worldwide by 2020. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Several parameters representing the clinical diversity of Parkinson's disease (PD), including severity, phenotypes, cognitive decline, anxiety and depression were analyzed to examine the link with interleukin-1β (IL-1β), the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA), IL-6, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα) and also to determine the relationship between levels of these factors in serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) was a newly identified receptor expressed on microglia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The challenge of opt-outs from NHS data: a small-area perspective

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of Public Health 2018-03-06

As a result, NHS data provide a huge and invaluable resource of routinely collected primary (e.g. visits to GP practices) and secondary (e.g. hospital admissions, outpatient appointments, A&E attendances) healthcare data covering near-100% of the population of England. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Neuroscience is developing rapidly by providing a variety of modern tools for analyzing the functional interactions of the brain and detection of pathological deviations due to neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

[18 F]MK-6240 (6-(fluoro)-3-(1H-pyrrolo[2,3-c]pyridin-1-yl)isoquinolin-5-amine) is a highly selective PET radiotracer for the in vivo imaging of neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs). [18 F]MK-6240 was synthesized in one step from its bis-Boc protected precursor N-[(tert-butoxy)carbonyl]-N-(6-nitro-3-[1H-pyrrolo[2,3-c]pyridin-1-yl]isoquinolin-5-yl) carbamate in DMSO using [18 F] fluoride with TEA HCO3 with step-wise heating up to 150°C, resulting in an isolated radiochemical yield of 9.8% ± 1.8% (n = 3) calculated from the end of bombardment (5.2% ± 1.0% calculated from the end of synthesis). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Topographic staging of tau positron emission tomography images

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2018-02-14

All three schemes estimated stages that were significantly associated with amyloid status and when dichotomized to tau positive or negative were 90% to 94% concordant in the populations identified. 3 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 27,380 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