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 12,476–12,500 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 500 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.

Postmortem brain studies of older drivers killed in car accidents indicate that many had Alzheimer disease (AD) neuropathologic changes. 2 key findings →

Participants: 129 Evidence: low

Synaptic dysfunctions precede cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease by decades, affect executive functions, and can be detected by quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG). 4 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is a small vessel disease characterized by the deposition of amyloid-beta in small cerebral vessels, which can lead to intracerebral hemorrhages and cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the total sample, T-tau and Aβ42/p-tau correlated with the total CAMCOG (P < .01); all biomarkers correlated with memory (P < .001); T-tau correlated with language (P < .01). 3 key findings →

Participants: 51 Evidence: low

After correction for age, sex, and education, CSF tau levels were found to be negatively related to the Visual Association Test (standardized β = -0.3, P < .05), whereas CSF Aβ1-42 levels were found to be positively related to the Mini-Mental State Examination (β = 0.3, P < .05), the frontal assessment battery (β = 0.5, P < .05), and digit span backwards test (β = 0.3, P = .01). 5 key findings →

Participants: 58 Evidence: low

Compared to cognitively normal subjects, AD-spectrum patients (i.e., EMCI, LMCI, and AD) showed a reversing trend toward an association between CSF pathological markers and the abnormal SRN occurring during the progression of AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 80 Evidence: low

Co-existence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) is a frequent finding, thus a common pathophysiological basis between AD and NPH has been postulated. 2 key findings →

Participants: 294 Evidence: low

33 Chinese- and 117 English-speaking older adults who received a diagnosis of normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment at consensus were included in the data analysis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Reduced speed and reduced smoothness in speed and pressure were observed particularly in the LBD group, while increased pauses and total durations were observed in both the AD and LBD groups. 3 key findings →

Participants: 47 Evidence: low

Eighty-three apps were reviewed (stroke, N=8; migraine, N=25; Alzheimer's disease and dementia, N=8; depression, N=7; anxiety, N=14; apps targeting depression and anxiety, N=21). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

In MCI subjects, the NCPT composite is significantly correlated with both a composite measure of established tests (r = 0.78, p < 0.0001) as well as with the ADAS-Cog (r = -0.55, p < 0.0001). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Smartphone applications for informal caregivers of chronically ill patients: a scoping review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. NPJ digital medicine 2022-03-21

Mobile-health applications can be used to deliver timely and personalized health information to family and friends of chronically ill adults living in the community. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

The median (interquartile range) test time for MARC was 401 (350-453) s. Total MARC scores were significantly worse in the MCI and ADD groups than in the NDC group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). 5 key findings →

Participants: 64 Evidence: low

Peruvian validation and standardization of the TabCAT-brain health assessment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Frontiers in public health 2025-08-29

By incorporating sex, place of residence, age, and years of education as covariates, the TabCAT-BHA demonstrated greater accuracy in detecting cognitive impairment (AUC = 75.3%) compared to the MMSE (AUC = 66.4%) and RUDAS (AUC = 71.4%). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The results show evidence for increased performance in the assessment of general cognitive functioning in both EGs (p ≤ 0.05). 5 key findings →

Participants: 84 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