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.

Review on Alzheimer-Suppressing Potential of different Medicinal plant

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 25 out of 100. Research Journal of Science and Technology 2026-04-25

Progressive neurodegenerative disorder i.e. Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by cognitive decline, oxidative stress, and cholinergic dysfunction, β-amyloid aggregation, tau hyperphosphorylation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

KCTD20 Suppression as a Potential Therapeutic Strategy against Neurodegenerative Tauopathies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 25 out of 100. Current Neuroscience 2026-04-07

The accumulation of tau proteins in the brain contributes to the therapeutic challenges faced by patients with Alzheimer’s disease, frontotemporal dementia, and other neurodegenerative disorders. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Down syndrome postmortem brains exhibit reduction in [ 18 F]nifene binding to α4β2* nicotinic acetylcholinergic receptors

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. bioRxiv 2026-09-15

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology including amyloid beta (Aβ) plaques and tau tangles accumulate with age in Down Syndrome (DS). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Oligodendrocyte Enriched Brain Organoids Reveal Impaired Oligodendroglial Maturation and Altered Neural Network Activity in Down Syndrome

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. bioRxiv 2026-08-28

Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) display developmental delay, intellectual disability, premature brain ageing, and an increased risk of Alzheimer-like neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease progresses heterogeneously across diverse cohorts, yet current predictive models fail to capture this complexity while remaining clinically interpretable. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,669 Evidence: moderate

These aggregated proteins contribute to the pathological and clinical heterogeneity of AD and are associated with a more rapid progression. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,304 Evidence: low

Abnormalities in core AD biomarkers precede inflammatory and glial markers in CSF in Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer’s Disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-04-01

Increasing evidence suggests that accurate prediction of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) symptom onset requires more than amyloid- and tau-centric biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42/40, total tau and p-tau181 and plasma p-tau217. 4 key findings →

Participants: 484 Evidence: low

In neurodegenerative diseases, the diagnostic value of α-synuclein seed amplification assay (αSAA) in routine clinical practice and its relationship with cognitive performance and fluid biomarkers remains incompletely characterized. 4 key findings →

Participants: 398 Evidence: moderate

Blood biomarkers for Alzheimer disease across ethnoracial groups and healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-05-18

Blood-based biomarkers could transform Alzheimer disease (AD) detection by enabling scalable, less invasive assessment of underlying pathology, yet their applicability across globally diverse populations remains uncertain. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Application of Plasma Neuron-Derived Exosome-Based Multimodal Biomarkers in the Early Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-04-09

Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology begins 15–20 years before clinical symptoms, necessitating non - invasive biomarkers for early diagnosis. 4 key findings →

Participants: 120 Evidence: low

Education and Alzheimer Disease Genetic Risk in Associations of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists With Dementia Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-09-08

We estimated associations of educational attainment and Alzheimer disease genetic risk with treatment initiation and incident dementia and compared GLP-1 receptor agonist initiators with initiators of non-sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor second-line therapies, with a separate sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor compa 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 14,364 Evidence: moderate

Predicting Subjective Cognitive Decline on Future BRFSS Survey Years: An Open Multi-Language Machine Learning Benchmark

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-21

Respondents who reported no difficulty deciding (DECIDE = 2) had substantially lower odds of SCD than those who reported difficulty (DECIDE = 1; aOR approximately 0.13; FDR < 0.05). 1 key finding →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 298,944 Evidence: low

Asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, cognitive decline and dementia: a prospective population-based cohort study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-21

BackgroundAsymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (ACAS) increases the risk of stroke, and is associated with cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 4,267 Evidence: high

A Precision Aging Approach to Cognitive Aging: Clustering Multiple Domains of Risk

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-21

The term Precision Aging describes an approach that focuses on multi-domain profiles of risks impacting individual trajectories of age-related cognitive functioning. 3 key findings →

Participants: 555 Evidence: moderate

Self-applied single-channel mastoid ExG for fully automated detection of REM sleep behaviour disorder

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-20

Isolated REM sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) is the strongest prodromal marker of Parkinsons disease (PD) and dementia with Lewy bodies, yet diagnosis requires video-polysomnography with assisted montage and expert scoring and does not scale to screening or trial enrichment. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 378 Evidence: moderate

INTRODUCTIONNovel capillary-blood collection methods have not yet been evaluated for a wide range of central nervous system (CNS) and neurodegenerative disease-related proteins. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimers disease blood biomarkers reveal proteomic modules of disease progression

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-19

Alzheimers disease (AD) unfolds over decades preceding cognitive symptoms, and measuring the full scope of its molecular complexity remains difficult. 1 key finding →

Participants: 11,042 Evidence: low

Impaired cerebrovascular-cerebrospinal fluid coupling is associated with non-motor features of Lewy body disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-19

Parkinsons disease and dementia with Lewy bodies patients both demonstrated weaker global BOLD-CSF coupling compared to controls, with no detectable difference between patient groups. 4 key findings →

Participants: 39 Evidence: low

The Dementia Trials Accelerator (DTA): a UK dementia trials-ready cohort

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-19

The Dementia Trials Accelerator (DTA) is a UK-wide programme designed to improve the feasibility, efficiency, and inclusiveness of recruitment into clinical trials of dementia and related brain-health conditions. 5 key findings →

Participants: 10,000 Evidence: low

Deep multimodal clustering identifies biological subtypes of normal aging with divergent cognitive decline risk

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-19

Cognitively normal older adults are often regarded as a homogeneous population in preventive and disease-modifying clinical trials for dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,136 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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