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.

FIBT versus florbetaben and PiB: a preclinical comparison study with amyloid-PET in transgenic mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. EJNMMI research 2015-03-28

We found that FIBT (2-(p-methylaminophenyl)-7-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethoxy)imidazo[2,1-b]benzothiazole) compares favorably to florbetaben as a high-contrasting PET radiopharmaceutical for imaging Aβ pathology. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Aberrant functional connectivity of default-mode network in type 2 diabetes patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. European radiology 2015-04-23

Patients showed increased connectivity around the medial prefrontal cortex in the anterior sub-network, but decreased connectivity around the posterior cingulate cortex in the posterior sub-network. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Ocular Fundus Photography as a Tool to Study Stroke and Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Seminars in neurology 2015-10-06

Although cerebral small vessel disease has been linked to stroke and dementia, due to limitations of current neuroimaging technology, direct in vivo visualization of changes in the cerebral small vessels (e.g., cerebral arteriolar narrowing, tortuous microvessels, blood-brain barrier damage, capillary microaneurysms) is difficult to achieve. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

[Inflammatory cerebral amyloid angiopathy]

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Brain and nerve = Shinkei kenkyu no shinpo 2015-03

Inflammatory cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) typically affects older patients who present with acute or subacute cognitive decline, headache, behavioral change, seizures, and focal neurological deficits. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Memantine ER/Donepezil: A Review in Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. CNS drugs 2015-11

A once-daily, fixed-dose combination of memantine extended-release (ER)/donepezil 28/10 mg (Namzaric™) is available in the USA for patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) on stable memantine and donepezil therapy. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive reserve and lifestyle: moving towards preclinical Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2015-08-10

The large majority of neuroimaging studies in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients have supported the idea that lifestyle factors may protect against the clinical manifestations of AD rather than influence AD neuropathological processes (the cognitive reserve hypothesis). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cerebral small vessel disease and chronic kidney disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Journal of stroke 2015-01-30

Chronic kidney disease, defined by a decreased glomerular filtration rate or albuminuria, is recognized as a major global health burden, mainly because it is an established risk factor for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. 1 key finding →

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