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 effects of CCT and TCE on improving global cognition and certain cognitive domains for older MCI adults may have been small but they lasted for at least 12 months. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Speech features on the linguistic and paralinguistic level will be extracted from the recordings and compared to data from CSF and blood biomarkers, neuroimaging, neuropsychological evaluations, genetic profiles, and family history. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,000 Evidence: moderate

Tau plays a key role in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology, and accumulating evidence suggests that lowering tau may reduce this pathology. 1 key finding →

Design: phase-1-trial Participants: 46 Evidence: early

For all 4 phosphorylation sites assessed in CSF, p-tau was significantly more closely associated with amyloid-PET values than tau-PET values (p-tau181 difference, 13%; 95% CI, 3%-22%; P = .006; p-tau217 difference, 11%; 95% CI, 3%-20%; P = .003; p-tau231 difference, 15%; 95% CI, 5%-22%; P Conclusions and relevance Results of this cross-sectional study of 2 observational cohorts suggest that the p-tau abnormality as an early event in AD pathogenesis was associated with amyloid-β accumulation and highlights the need for careful interpretation of p-tau biomarkers in the context of the amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration, or A/T/(N), framework. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 609 Evidence: moderate

In a proportion of patients, dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is associated with Alzheimer disease (AD) copathology, which is linked to accelerated cognitive decline and more extensive cortical atrophy. 5 key findings →

Participants: 45 Evidence: high

The literature has several methodological limitations including lack of sufficient algorithm development descriptions and standard definitions. 1 key finding →

Participants: 255 Evidence: moderate

The Olink Proteomics panel of inflammation markers ( https://www.olink.com/products/inflammation/ ) will be used to evaluate 92 proteins associated with inflammatory diseases and related biological processes. 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 50 Evidence: high

ICT-based cognitive intervention had a positive effect on cognitive function, depression, and quality of life in older adults with MCI or mild dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

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

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2023-06-12

After multivariable adjustment, patients showed an odds ratio (OR) of 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 1·76 (1·05-2·96) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for anxiety or depression, and OR 0·87 (0·68-1·11) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 2·75 (1·61-4·69) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for fatigue or muscle weakness. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate

Plasma biomarkers and genetics in the diagnosis and prediction of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2023-02-01

To define Alzheimer's disease with biomarkers rather than clinical assessment, we assessed prediction of research-diagnosed disease status using these biomarkers and tested genetic variants associated with the biomarkers that may reflect more accurately the risk of biochemically defined Alzheimer's disease instead of the risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 1,439 Evidence: moderate

Plasma phosphorylated tau 217 in preclinical Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Brain communications 2023-03-06

An accurate blood test for Alzheimer's disease that is sensitive to preclinical proteinopathy and cognitive decline has clear implications for early detection and secondary prevention. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 165 Evidence: moderate

Plasma biomarker profiles in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2023-03-01

Emerging plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease might be non-invasive tools to trace early Alzheimer's disease-related abnormalities such as the accumulation of amyloid-beta peptides, neurofibrillary tau tangles, glial activation and neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 164 Evidence: moderate

Higher concentrations of plasma p-tau217, p-tau181, and NfL were correlated to higher decline speed of Mini-Mental State Examination score, and higher risk of incident dementia and AD. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,857 Evidence: moderate

There were 571 participants in the normal cognition group, 625 participants in the subjective cognitive decline group, 155 participants in the objectively defined subtle cognitive decline group, 501 participants in the mild cognitive impairment group, 471 participants in Alzheimer's disease group, and 128 participants with cognitive impairment from other known causes. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 4,386 Evidence: moderate

The A+P+T- group showed a slower rate of increase in tau-PET compared to the A+P+T+ group, primarily in neocortical regions. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 231 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease diagnostic accuracy by fluid and neuroimaging ATN framework

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. CNS neuroscience & therapeutics 2023-07-12

Our findings suggest that plasma, CSF, and neuroimaging biomarkers differ considerably within the ATN framework; the most accurate target biomarkers for diagnosing AD were the CSF-A, neuroimaging-T, and neuroimaging-N within each ATN modality. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,340 Evidence: moderate

Prospective cohort studies have implied associations between blood levels of troponin T, troponin I, NT-proBNP, GDF15, dementia, and cognitive function, without providing evidence favoring possible causality. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 257,842 Evidence: moderate

The study will provide a foundation for a fully powered clinical trial for the smartphone app-based intervention to reduce stress, depression, and anxiety among family caregivers of people with dementia in Vietnam. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The high costs of institutional care and the burdensome demands of home care are challenging for families of adults with dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Demographic and clinical characteristics between individuals with aMCI defined by the Inbrain CST and CERAD-K were not significantly different. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 166 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 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