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.

There is small but significant increase in access to specialist palliative care services in Western Australia, specifically in patients dying with non-cancer conditions. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,928 Evidence: moderate

This is the first report of incidence rate differences for dementia and AD in studies of 2 populations from nonindustrialized and industrialized countries using identical methods and the same group of investigators in both sites. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,459 Evidence: moderate

Resting-state fMRI (rs-fMRI) detects functional connectivity (FC) abnormalities that occur in the brains of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Our results revealed machine learning with novel biomarkers and multiple variables may increase the sensitivity and specificity in diagnosis of AD. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The same daily ACB score was associated with a different degree of risk, depending on the ACB ratings of the individual drugs comprising the score. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 10,698 Evidence: moderate

Study objective To examine the risks and compare the occurrences of major long-term side effects (sexual dysfunction, bone fractures, diabetes, cardiovascular morbidity, acute myocardial infarction [MI], and dementia) in patients with prostate cancer who received androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with those who did not. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 201,797 Evidence: moderate

Increasing comorbidity and health services utilization in older adults with prior stroke

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Neurology 2016-10-19

Our findings demonstrate the importance of community-based patient-centered care strategies for stroke survivors that address their range of health needs and prevent more costly acute care use. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 29,673 Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau217 showed the strongest individual association with Aβ PET status (area under the curve [AUC], 0.85). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,407 Evidence: moderate

Neuropathology cases included 46 Parkinson's disease and 10 dementia with Lewy bodies, and clinical cases included 173 Parkinson's disease, and 64 controls. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 46 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

The Core 1 biomarker PGSs predicted AD pathology and associated cognitive performance better than the AD PGSs in both populations. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 515 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

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

Plasma tau biomarkers for biological staging of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Nature aging 2025-08-22

A blood biomarker-based staging system for Alzheimer's disease (AD) could improve the diagnosis, prognosis and identification of individuals most likely to benefit from specific therapies. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 689 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

The best-performing MRI-free approaches had high continuous and dichotomous agreement with MRI-dependent SUVRs for Aβ PET and temporal flortaucipir (R2 ≥0.95; ± agreement ≥92%) and for Alzheimer's disease-related effect sizes; agreement was slightly lower for entorhinal flortaucipir and longitudinal slopes. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,290 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

↑ 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