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 1,351–1,375 of 3,821 studies published 2025 (page 55 of 153) · 27,380 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.

Development and Validation of a 18 F-Flortaucipir PET Visual Stratification Method

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2025-03-13

The median PPA and NPA were 83.4% and 88.9%, respectively, with lower bounds of 2-sided 95% CIs being 50% or greater for all readers. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 140 Evidence: low

In this study, the total scores of caregiver burden, family resilience, and SOC were 45.64 ± 17.04, 175.30 ± 34.38, and 52.29 ± 15.91 among family caregivers of people with dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Financial difficulties and well-being among caregivers of persons with severe dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Aging & Mental Health 2025-03-25

= 0.01). We also found that greater use of emotion-focused coping and deriving greater gains in caregiving mitigated the negative association between caregiver financial difficulty and their distress and perception of PwSDs' well-being. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Caregivers whose care recipients were female ( B = −0.29, p = 0.006), had more chronic conditions ( B = 0.31, p = 0.011), and had lower Mini-Mental State Exam scores ( B = −0.20, p = 0.015) reported higher task time burdens. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

All concurrent validity correlations followed the expected directionality, with 19/21 inter-scale correlations in the total sample reaching statistical significance (p<0.05), and 17/21 reaching at least a low correlation (0.3). 4 key findings →

Participants: 100 Evidence: low

In 2021, global mortality from AD and other dementias among individuals aged 60 and older reached approximately 1,922,970.75 cases (95% CI: 480,348.08 to 5,104,315.95), and the prevalence was 52,560,253.51 cases (95% CI: 41,399,948.84 to 65,633,448.71). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Among a cohort comprising 109,778 individuals, the use of GLP-1RA demonstrated a reduced risk of dementia compared with its non-use (aHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97). 4 key findings →

Participants: 109,778 Evidence: moderate

The global age-standardized prevalence of AD and other dementias increased from 672 (95% uncertainty interval: 589 to 764) per 100,000 population in 1990 to 694 (603 to 794) per 100,000 population in 2021, with AAPCs of 0.09% (95% confidence interval: 0.06% to 0.11%). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The early and accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia remains a critical challenge, particularly with traditional machine learning models which often fail to provide transparency in their predictions, reducing user confidence and treatment effectiveness. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

At baseline, participants were aged 70-95 years (mean: 75.2 ± 4.3), with 54% being women. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Recent advances in neuroimaging of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-09-01

This review covers recent advances (2023-2024) in neuroimaging research into the pathophysiology, progression, and treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Plasma from individuals with a higher WMH burden was associated with increased BBB disruption in hBMEC. 5 key findings →

Participants: 155 Evidence: low

In mid-life, the sample sizes ranged from 4100 in 2022 to 5589 in 2017-18 and in late-life from 2799 in 2011-12 to 3762 in 2017-18. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

We show reduced fiber cross-section in LBD versus PD, and increased concentrations of plasma neurofilament light chain and p-tau217; with p-tau217 and fiber cross-section associated with cognition. 5 key findings →

Participants: 47 Evidence: low

• SCD patients showed attenuation of sensory (P1, N1, P2) and cognitive (P300, P600, P900) components, with performance-related gains. • MCI patients exhibited neural compensations, reversing the downward trend observed in SCD, which resulted in a non-monotonic pattern of ERPs. • The progression of cognitive decline was linked to electrophysiological discontinuity, suggesting resilience mechanisms in both low and higher order cognitive regions. 5 key findings →

Participants: 178 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