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.

Glymphatic failure may precede amyloid pathology, and predicts amyloid deposition, neurodegeneration, and clinical progression in AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 419 Evidence: moderate

This randomized clinical trial demonstrated the positive effects of rTMS on cognitive and functional performance, and the plastic changes in the hippocampal-cortical network. 5 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: high

High-Risk Medications in Persons Living With Dementia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2024-12-01

These findings suggest medication-specific educational mailings targeting patients with AD or ADRD and their clinicians are not effective in reducing the use of high-risk medications. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 787 Evidence: high

AI-based differential diagnosis of dementia etiologies on multimodal data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Nature medicine 2024-07-04

Differential diagnosis of dementia remains a challenge in neurology due to symptom overlap across etiologies, yet it is crucial for formulating early, personalized management strategies. 1 key finding →

Participants: 51,269 Evidence: low

Variants of the gene triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative disorders. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

GRN mutations cause progranulin haploinsufficiency, which eventually leads to frontotemporal dementia (FTD-GRN). 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: moderate

Dose-response relationship between computerized cognitive training and cognitive improvement

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. NPJ digital medicine 2024-08-15

Although computerized cognitive training (CCT) is an effective digital intervention for cognitive impairment, its dose-response relationship is understudied. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 8,709 Evidence: moderate

Hallucinations, delusions, and depression were more common in DLB than in AD and, in a subgroup with longitudinal follow-up, persistent hallucinations and NPSs were associated with lower p-tau181 and p-tau231 in DLB. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 222 Evidence: moderate

None of the three plasma biomarker was associated with NPS at baseline. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 76 Evidence: moderate

In general linear models lower plasma Aβ42/40 was related to lower visuospatial ability, higher total tau was related to lower episodic memory, and higher NfL was related to lower visuospatial ability and lower episodic memory. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 260 Evidence: moderate

A smartphone application collected 2 modalities of cognitive data, digital voice and screen-based behaviors, from the FHS (Framingham Heart Study) multigenerational Generation 2 (Gen 2) and Generation 3 (Gen 3) cohorts. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 455 Evidence: moderate

According to CDR-SB measurements, lecanemab showed effectiveness in reducing brain amyloid and cognitive decline, with a change from baseline of 1.21. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of Alzheimer's disease drugs: A meta-analysis and systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Medicine 2024-04-19

All drugs improved the cognitive function, with the effect value ranging from -1.23 (95% CI -2.17 to -0.30) for 20 mg memantine to -3.29 (95% CI -4.14 to -2.45) for 32 mg galantamine. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease (AD) affects millions of people worldwide. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

While most studies to date have been cross-sectional, limiting the establishment of causal relationships, the potential benefits of trace lithium for suicide prevention and dementia prevention are notable, especially in the absence of radical treatments for suicide and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Hearing loss is highly prevalent in dementia; however, people with dementia are less likely to use hearing aids consistently than people with intact cognition are. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The cognitive reserve (CR) hypothesis posits that individuals can differ in how their brain function is disrupted by pathology associated with aging and neurodegeneration. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 490 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive dysfunction is common in late life depression (LLD) and is a major risk factor for dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

We searched 122 studies, of which 90 were included in our analysis. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Among those newly diagnosed, Black and Hispanic patients encountered higher total costs compared to White patients, and ADRD patients living in the most vulnerable areas experienced the highest total costs compared to patients living in other regions. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 742,175 Evidence: moderate

US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic-review Evidence: high

↑ 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