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.

There were 115,757 NH residents with dementia who self-reported pain in the last 30 days of life. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20,585 Evidence: low

PROFILE OF DECEDENTS FROM A NATIONAL COHORT OF ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENTS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2022-11-01

An increasing number of older adults reside in assisted living (AL) toward the end of life, and it remains unclear if this trend represents an additional place of care and end-of-life transition before eventual nursing home admission. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 273,722 Evidence: moderate

Early-onset Alzheimer’s disease (EOAD) is characterized by the presence of neurological symptoms in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) before 65 years of age. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

NPS frequency varied from 18% for appetite and/or eating changes to 42% for delusions. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Prevalent LB- and AD-related neurodegenerative pathologies affect a significant proportion of iNPH patients and contribute to cognitive decline (both) and motor impairment (only LB pathology) but do not significantly influence the surgical outcome at 6 months. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

We anticipate that transcranial alternating current stimulation will be a well-tolerated treatment, with no serious side effects and with considerable short- and long-term cognitive improvements. 2 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, has increasing incidence, increasing mortality rates, and poses a huge burden on healthcare. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Caregiving Burden Among Caregivers of People With Dementia Through the Lens of Intersectionality

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2022-05-01

Surprisingly, compared to White female caregivers, all the other groups were 37% (95% CI 0.41-0.95) to 71% (95% CI 0.15-0.56) less likely to have emotional burden. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In South Korea, digital literacy education programs are expected to help its older population participate in online welfare services to increase their social support, self-esteem and well-being. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The existence of individuals who remain cognitively intact despite presenting histopathological signs of Alzheimer's disease (AD), here referred to as "Nondemented with AD neuropathology" (NDAN), suggests that some mechanisms are triggered to resist cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) is a key pro-tumorigenic marker of tumor-infiltrating macrophages, showing potent immunosuppressive activity in tumor microenvironment. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

A non-coding variant (rs35349669) in INPP5D increases the risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD), and elevated INPP5D expression is associated with increased plaque deposition. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Triggering receptors expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is considered a protective factor to protect host from bacterial infection, while how it elicits this role is unclear. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We aimed to elucidate the dynamics of blood biomarkers according to the severity of cognitive impairment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and to identify useful biomarkers for diabetes-related dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD), characterized by the β-amyloid protein (Aβ) deposition and tau hyperphosphorylation, is the most common dementia with uncertain etiology. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The cross-disciplinary expertise, required for GA, common in the days before medical specialization and enabled by the relative paucity of development in various fields compared with today, can be reborn with the advent of Electronic Health Records (EHR) systems that make the tools of medical geography accessible to a wide variety of health care researchers and clinical subspecialties. 4 key findings →

Participants: 127 Evidence: low

The study included 2,284,175 FFS Medicare beneficiaries with an ADRD diagnosis in 2017. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,284,175 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