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 Amyloid Hypothesis of Alzheimer's Disease: Progress and Problems on the Road to Therapeutics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Science 2002-07-19

It has been more than 10 years since it was first proposed that the neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD) may be caused by deposition of amyloid beta-peptide (Abeta) in plaques in brain tissue. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Without validated cutoff scores, it is impossible to employ tests in a standardized fashion in front-line clinical settings. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), exhibit distinct yet overlapping pathological mechanisms. 2 key findings →

Participants: 10,527 Evidence: low

Idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder associated with akinesia, tremor and rigidity. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Bibliometric Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Journal of medical Internet research 2020-07-29

This analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the AI-related research conducted in the field of health care, which helps researchers, policy makers, and practitioners better understand the development of health care-related AI research and possible practice implications. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The innate immune system is implicated in Parkinson's disease (PD), but peripheral in-vivo clinical evidence of the components and driving mechanisms involved and their relationship with clinical heterogeneity and progression to dementia remain poorly explored. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 41 Evidence: moderate

& aims The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (atezo+bev) is the current standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), providing a median overall survival (OS) of 19.2 months. 4 key findings →

Participants: 317 Evidence: low

Whether or not there is targeted pharmacotherapy for dementia, an active and healthy lifestyle that includes physical activity (PA) may be a better option than medication for preventing dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 484,169 Evidence: low

Cognitive impairment in the U.S.: Lifetime risk, age at onset, and years impaired

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. SSM - population health 2020-03-31

Prior studies have analyzed the burden of cognitive impairment, but often use potentially biased prevalence-based methods or measure only years lived with impairment, without estimating other relevant metrics. 3 key findings →

Participants: 29,304 Evidence: low

Among non-Latino Whites, ADI was associated with dementia incidence (most vs. least disadvantaged ADI quintile HR = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.15). 4 key findings →

Participants: 18,103 Evidence: low

Blood-Based Analysis of Different Tau Variants in Patients With Multiple Traumatic Injuries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA network open 2026-02-02

With blood-based phosphorylated tau biomarkers soon to be used for diagnosis of Alzheimer disease, analyzing tau levels in other conditions could enhance biomarker interpretability. 4 key findings →

Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate

Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) have a genetically determined form of Alzheimer's disease (AD) due to the amyloid precursor protein (APP) gene dose effect. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Anosognosia, the lack of awareness of memory decline, and Neuropsychiatric Symptoms (NPS) are prevalent and debilitating symptoms in Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 53 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 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