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

Showing 10,501–10,525 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 421 of 1086) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

Review of Safety and Efficacy of Sleep Medicines in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Clinical therapeutics 2016-10-15

Although non-BzRAs have improved safety profiles compared with benzodiazepines, their side effects include dementia, serious injury, and fractures, which should limit their use. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Although diagnosed by characteristic motor features, Parkinson's disease may be preceded, and is frequently accompanied by, a wide range of cognitive and neuropsychiatric features. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Aging and Alzheimer's disease: Comparison and associations from molecular to system level

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Aging cell 2018-07-02

Alzheimer's disease is the most prevalent cause of dementia, which is defined by the combined presence of amyloid and tau, but researchers are gradually moving away from the simple assumption of linear causality proposed by the original amyloid hypothesis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Insulin Resistance and Alzheimer's Disease: Bioenergetic Linkages

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2017-10-31

Metabolic dysfunction is a well-established feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD), evidenced by brain glucose hypometabolism that can be observed potentially decades prior to the development of AD symptoms. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

To determine whether neurodegeneration in Alzheimer disease brain is associated with degradation of structural cell membrane molecules, we measured tissue levels of the major membrane phospholipids and their metabolites in three cortical areas from postmortem brains of Alzheimer disease patients and matched controls. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Amyloid beta (Abeta) immunoreactivity in neurons was examined in brains of 32 control subjects, 31 people with Down syndrome, and 36 patients with sporadic Alzheimer's disease to determine if intraneuronal Abeta immunoreactivity is an early manifestation of Alzheimer-type pathology leading to fibrillar plaque formation and/or neurofibrillary degeneration. 4 key findings →

Participants: 31 Evidence: low

The alteration of the insulin-signaling/mTOR pathways represents an early event in DS brain and likely contributes to the cerebral dysfunction and intellectual disability observed in this unique population. 1 key finding →

Participants: 17 Evidence: low

Detection of an Alzheimer disease pattern of cerebral metabolism in Down syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Dementia (Basel, Switzerland) 1994-03-01

Correlational analysis of cerebral metabolic (rCMRglc) data obtained with positron emission tomography (PET) assesses group differences and has demonstrated reduced frontal-parietal rCMRglc interdependencies in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 15 Evidence: moderate

Until now, data on the longitudinal trajectories of amyloid accumulation, tau pathology, and brain atrophy over multiple time points remain scarce in DS. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The ε4 allele of the apolipoprotein E gene (APOE ε4) is associated with an additional risk for AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 240 Evidence: low

The changing scene of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neuroscience 2013-03-06

Several recent breakthroughs have provided notable insights into the pathogenesis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), with some even shifting our thinking about this neurodegenerative disease and raising the question as to whether this disorder is a proteinopathy, a ribonucleopathy or both. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Oxidative stress and the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 1996-12-01

Current concepts of the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease (PD) center on the formation of reactive oxygen species and the onset of oxidative stress leading to oxidative damage to substantia nigra pars compacta. 2 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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