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.

To evaluate plasma p-tau217 ability to detect pre-symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD) in ethnoracially diverse cognitively normal individuals. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

These findings suggest that sexual differentiation in early life has modest effects on adult development of AD in females, a relationship that appeared stronger in the context of APOE4 . 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Anti-amyloid treatment (AAT) with monoclonal antibodies represents a major therapeutic advance in early Alzheimer disease (AD), but its introduction has important and underappreciated implications for vascular neurology. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Anti‐amyloid antibodies in Europe: Where are we now?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2026-03-11

In the pivotal study in the overall population, the treatment showed a difference of −0.45 points between lecanemab and placebo in the adjusted mean change from baseline on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) at 18 months (the primary endpoint). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: moderate

Towards an Equitable Approach to Multilingual Language Assessment in Dementia Care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. Topics in Language Disorders 2026-07-01

Health disparities in dementia care are amplified among aging multilingual communities relative to their monolingual English-speaking counterparts, as social determinants of health and significant gaps in culturally responsive practice can contribute to misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, and delays in intervention. 2 key findings →

Design: case report Evidence: low

Participants reported routine screening for cognitive impairment only in the context of the Medicare annual wellness visit and generally avoided routine screening because of limited treatment options to support patients, such as poor access to geriatrics/neuropsychiatric services. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

BackgroundWhile transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) shows therapeutic promise for neurological and psychiatric disorders when applied repeatedly, its potential is constrained by multiple laboratory visits. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

BackgroundEpigenetic mechanisms, particularly histone modifications at gene promoters, are crucial for controlling gene transcription. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive and complicated neurodegenerative disorder that mostly affects the elderly and is characterized by memory loss, cognitive dysfunction, accumulation of amyloid beta (Aβ) plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and cholinergic deficits. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Our findings reinforce the notion of a bidirectional association between epilepsy and AD, providing proof-of-concept that epilepsy, especially late-onset, may be successfully integrated into AD risk frameworks. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Ginsenosides are the primary active constituents derived from the dried roots of ginseng, a staple in traditional Chinese medicine. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study demonstrated that selectively targeting PDE4A rescued cognitive and neuropathological deficits in a validated mouse model of AlD. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by synaptic dysfunction, neuroinflammation, and cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Age-related upregulation in microRNA (miR)-204 and downregulation in long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) nuclear enriched abundant transcript 1 (NEAT1) were observed to disrupt Ephrin-B1 (EFNB1)/EphB2 interactions, leading to reduced cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP)/protein kinase A (PKA) and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (Akt) signaling pathway activation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Importantly, delirium is not merely a transient cognitive fluctuation; it is independently associated with increased short- and long-term mortality, longer hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and persistent cognitive impairment comparable to mild dementia[4,5]. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Hexanucleotide repeat expansion in the chromosome 9 open reading frame 72 ( C9orf72 ) gene has been identified as the most common genetic cause of both frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of regular dental scaling by evaluating the association between the frequency of dental scaling and the risk of dementia in individuals with moderate to severe periodontal disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The prevalence of hypertension showed statistically significant spatial clustering (global Moran’s I=0.442, p<.001), with high-high clusters concentrated in rural eup-myeon areas and low-low clusters in urban dong areas. 4 key findings →

Participants: 62,411 Evidence: low

Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) disproportionately impact older Black American adults, with diet-related cardiometabolic conditions contributing to increased risk. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This study aims to analyze the spatial planning and operational strategies of three profile nursing homes in Copenhagen, Denmark-Hørgården, Peder Lykke Center, and Ørestad Plejecenter-and to derive design and operational implications for the development of Korean unit-based long-term care facilities for older adults. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Reasons for declining included mis-association with hospice, not seeing additional benefit to current care, and reluctance to change current care. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

This reduction is likely a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have decreased overall diagnostic opportunities. 3 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 27,380 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