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 PDAPP transgenic mouse, which overexpresses human amyloid precursor protein (APP717V-->F), has been shown to develop much of the pathology associated with Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Impaired learning and LTP in mice expressing the carboxy terminus of the Alzheimer amyloid precursor protein

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Nature 1997-05-01

Proteolytic processing of amyloid precursor protein (APP) through an endosomal/lysosomal pathway generates carboxy-terminal polypeptides that contain an intact beta-amyloid domain. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

beta-amyloid protein (A beta) formation was reconstituted in permeabilized neuroblastoma cells expressing human Alzheimer beta-amyloid precursor protein (beta APP) harboring the Swedish double mutation associated with familial early-onset Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mutations in the presenilin 1 (PS1) and presenilin 2 (PS2) genes increase the production of the highly amyloidogenic 42-residue form of amyloid beta-protein (Abeta42) in a variety of cell lines and transgenic mice. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The objectives of this study were to assess whether Teng's modification of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) improves its performance as a screening test for cognitive impairment and dementia, and to replicate this comparison in French and English language groups, and for differing assumptions concerning the relative importance of false negative and false positive errors. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We developed a set of informant-based items describing performance of activities of daily living (ADL) by patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) to identify which ADL are useful for assessment of patients in clinical trials. 4 key findings →

Participants: 45 Evidence: low

Population studies indicate that subjective memory complaints by elderly people are correlated with cognitive performance. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,114 Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a devastating neurological disorder characterized by loss of cognitive skills and progressive dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The difficulty in differentiating progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP, also called Steele-Richardson-Olszewski syndrome) from other related disorders was the incentive for a study to determine the clinical features that best distinguish PSP. 5 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: low

Argyrophilic grain disease: widespread hyperphosphorylation of tau protein in limbic neurons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 1997-05-01

Argyrophilic grains (ArG) and coiled bodies of argyrophilic grain disease (AgD) and the neurofibrillary lesions of Alzheimer's disease (AD) share similar antigenic determinants, among them hyperphosphorylated microtubule-associated protein tau. 2 key findings →

Participants: 41 Evidence: low

To determine whether cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) viral burden measurements can assist in the evaluation of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated neurocognitive disorders, we quantified HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA in CSF. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

In this study increased carer burden was related independently to increased levels of patient behaviour disturbance and decreased levels of informal social support. 2 key findings →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

Hereditary frontotemporal dementia (HFTD) is a rare autosomal dominant form of presenile dementia characterized by behavioral changes and reduced speech. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The presence of the APOE epsilon 4 allele encoding apolipoprotein E4 (apoE4) is the major genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Applications of the random fluid-based probabilistic atlas include the transfer of multisubject 3D functional, vascular, and histologic maps onto a single anatomic template, the mapping of 3D atlases onto the scans of new subjects, and the rapid detection, quantification, and mapping of local shape changes in 3D medical images in disease and during normal or abnormal growth and development. 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 27,380 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