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 12,776–12,800 of 16,727 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 512 of 670) · 29,780 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.

The need for a reliable, simple, and inexpensive blood test for Alzheimer's disease (AD) suitable for use in a primary care setting is widely recognized. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Alz-tau Biomarker for Alzheimer's Disease: Study in a Caucasian Population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2019-01-01

The establishment of a molecular biomarker for early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is critical for diagnosis and follow up of patients, and as a quantitative parameter in the evaluation of potential new drugs to control AD. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is characterized by cognitive deficits but essentially preserved competence in activities of daily living. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

In older patients, typical clinical symptoms and blood test changes were often absent; however, CT always contained typical findings of COVID-19, suggesting that CT may be a useful diagnostic tool. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

With the increasing number of people living with Alzheimer's disease (AD), there is a need for low-cost and easy to use methods to detect AD early to facilitate access to appropriate care pathways. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The autophagy-lysosome pathway (ALP) regulates intracellular homeostasis of the cytosolic protein SNCA/alpha-synuclein and is impaired in synucleinopathies, including Parkinson disease and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The aggregation of the 42-residue form of the amyloid-β peptide (Aβ42) is a pivotal event in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

There is currently no established therapy to treat or prevent Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Here, we found that overexpression of human wild-type full-length MAPT, which models MAPT pathologies as seen in sporadic AD patients, induced autophagy deficits via repression of autophagosome-lysosome fusion leading to significantly increased LC3 (microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3)-II and SQSTM1/p62 (sequestosome 1) protein levels with autophagosome accumulation. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study aimed to develop a psychometrically valid touch screen tablet-based cognitive test battery to identify early cognitive impairment due to dementia in older adults. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The hippocampus is closely tied to spatial navigation, a central component in cognitive functioning, and critically involved in age-associated cognitive decline and dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

According to the existing literature, subjecting patients to various neuro-rehabilitative conditions within 3D virtual environments, allows them to obtain significant therapeutic benefits in which both transferability and durations over time are observed, in relation to the training period of the intervention. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The aforementioned technology-based interventions may represent practical means for supporting people with Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Risk factors for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Folia neuropathologica 2019-01-01

Early reviews identified over 20 risk factors associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) including age, familial inheritance, exposure to aluminium, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and associated co-morbidities such as vascular disease and infection. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Abnormalities of the endosomal-lysosomal network (ELN) are a signature feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Among the LDL receptor (LDLR) family members, the roles of LDLR-related protein (LRP)1 in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), especially late-onset AD, have been the most studied by genetic, neuropathological, and biomarker analyses (clinical studies) or cellular and animal model systems (preclinical studies) over the last 25 years. 4 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.

1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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