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.

Primary analysis calculated the impact of increasing the use of mirabegron from 4.5% to 5.3%, 7.1%, and 9.4% in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively, among oral pharmacological OAB treatments that included generic and branded antimuscarinics: oxybutynin, tolterodine, trospium, darifenacin, fesoterodine, and solifenacin. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

An Interprofessional Virtual Healthcare Neighborhood (VHN) was designed to deliver information, peer support, and professional guidance to caregivers of individuals with dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 28 Evidence: low

Chronic inflammation is characterized by longstanding microglial activation followed by sustained release of inflammatory mediators, which aid in enhanced nitrosative and oxidative stress. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The role of inflammation in neurological disorders is increasingly recognised. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Tau toxicity has been implicated in the emergence of synaptic dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the mechanism by which tau alters synapse physiology and leads to cognitive decline is unclear. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

We found that these brain ApoE knock-out (bEKO) mice had synaptic loss and dysfunction similar to that of ApoE KO mice; however, the bEKO mice did not have the learning and memory impairment observed in ApoE KO mice. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The term oligomeropathies defines the neurodegenerative disorders associated with protein misfolding, where small soluble aggregates (oligomers 4-200 KDa) are the cause of neuronal dysfunction and are responsible for spreading the pathology. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The formation and deposition of tau protein aggregates is proposed to contribute to cognitive impairments in dementia by disrupting neuronal function in brain regions, including the hippocampus. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

There has been an awakening: Emerging mechanisms of C9orf72 mutations in FTD/ALS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Brain research 2016-04-06

The discovery of C9orf72 mutations as the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) has awakened a surge of interest in deciphering how mutations in this mysterious gene cause disease and what can be done to stop it. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This privileging, also known as implicit rationing, is theoretically and physiologically associated with a rise in the incidence of complications such as pressure injuries, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and delirium. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Efforts to clinically diagnose cases having dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) identify those with a characteristic clinical syndrome (probable DLB) at the expense of missing an equal, if not greater, number of cases who have atypical presentations thought to be associated with coexisting Alzheimer pathologies. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our findings indicate the possible need for increased support for caregivers, including educational interventions targeting pain etiology and assessment, and improved communication with health-care professionals. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

We defined superagers (60-80 years old) based on their performance compared to young adults (18-32 years old) on the California Verbal Learning Test Long Delay Free Recall test. 5 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 27,780 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