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.

In this cohort study of US Medicare beneficiaries, dual sensory impairment was prevalent in older adults and associated with increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 7,562 Evidence: moderate

This study suggests that plasma GFAP is a sensitive biomarker for detecting and tracking reactive astrogliosis and Aβ pathology even among individuals in the early stages of AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 300 Evidence: moderate

Exclusion criteria included any significant neurologic disorder other than suspected AD; presence of infection, infarction, or multiple lacunes as detected by magnetic resonance imaging; and any significant systemic condition that could lead to difficulty complying with the protocol. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,113 Evidence: moderate

Sex Differences in Cognitive Decline Among US Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. JAMA network open 2021-02-01

Among 34 349 participants, 26 088 who self-reported Black or White race, were free of stroke and dementia, and had covariate data at or before the first cognitive assessment were included for analysis. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 349 Evidence: moderate

The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best-known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Higher MCI prevalence was identified in community-dwelling older adult populations in China compared with some other countries, possibly due to more broadened criteria being adopted for confirming the diagnosis. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 112,632 Evidence: high

Relative to HC, the participants with cTBI had lower CAC (0.10 ± 0.03 vs 0.12 ± 0.03 mm 2 /mm Hg, P = .046) and higher CVR (0.17 ± 0.03 vs 0.15 ± 0.03 mm Hg/mL/min, P = .028). 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The intervention group showed improvement on several measures of wellbeing including Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Plasma p-tau231: a new biomarker for incipient Alzheimer's disease pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2021-02-14

Furthermore, plasma p-tau231 was significantly increased in amyloid-β PET quartiles 2-4, whereas CSF p-tau217 and plasma p-tau181 increased only at quartiles 3-4 and 4, respectively. 2 key findings →

Participants: 588 Evidence: moderate

Time course of phosphorylated-tau181 in blood across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2021-02-01

Smoothing splines demonstrated that earliest plasma p-tau181 changes occurred even before amyloid-β markers reached abnormal levels, with greater rates of change correlating with increased amyloid-β pathology. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,067 Evidence: moderate

A significant drug-placebo difference on the ADAS-Cog12 favoring GV-971 was present at each measurement time point, measurable at the week 4 visit and continuing throughout the trial. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 818 Evidence: high

6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2021-01-08

After multivariable adjustment, patients showed an odds ratio (OR) 1·61 (95% CI 0·80-3·25) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 4·60 (1·85-11·48) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for diffusion impairment; OR 0·88 (0·66-1·17) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and OR 1·77 (1·05-2·97) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for anxiety or depression, and OR 0·74 (0·58-0·96) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 2·69 (1·46-4·96) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for fatigue or muscle weakness. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate

We tested the hypothesis that plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) identifies asymptomatic carriers of familial frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD)-causing mutations at risk of disease progression. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 277 Evidence: moderate

At randomization, the mean age is 72, 50% female, 77% with CDR-global score 0.5, and mean MMSE score 23.8. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 464 Evidence: high

Age and frailty are independently associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,711 Evidence: moderate

We collected a total of 29 prospective studies for the systematic literature review and meta-analysis. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 29 Evidence: high

A lower proportion of patients with cancer had palliative care initiated in the home (16 088 [14.5%]) compared with patients with chronic organ failure (6904 [32.8%]; absolute difference, -18.3%) or dementia (3922 [27.9%]; absolute difference, -13.4%). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 709 Evidence: moderate

This systematic review highlighted the lack of consensus regarding referral criteria for palliative care in patients with dementia and the need to identify timely triggers to standardize referral. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 43 Evidence: high

Bilingualism has been linked to improved executive function and delayed onset of dementia, but it is unknown whether similar benefits can be obtained later in life through deliberate intervention. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 76 Evidence: high

The APOE ε4 allele remains the strongest genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer's disease and the APOE ε2 allele the strongest genetic protective factor after multiple large scale genome-wide association studies and genome-wide association meta-analyses. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

↑ 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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    Where this research is being discussed: events