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 14,026–14,050 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 562 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.

According to the analysis of the GBD database in 2021, the deaths, DALYs, incidence, and prevalence of ADOD increased by 297.34 %, 249.54 %, 244.73 %, and 250.44 % in Asia from 1990 to 2021. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

T2DM is one of the strong risk factors of ADRD but genetic T2DM effect does not contribute to ADRD risk. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Over a median follow-up period of 10.44 years, 725 participants developed incident dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 104,572 Evidence: low

Of 289,649 included participants, 137,480 (47.5 %) were male, and the mean age was 56.6 ± 8.1 years. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The findings of this study suggest that predictive modeling could inform patients and clinicians about ASCVD at risk for dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 29,561 Evidence: low

Predictive performance was comparable across algorithms, with R² ranging from 0.201 to 0.361, highest in the MCI_All dataset. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 4,958 Evidence: moderate

Among 1616 participants (AD = 1498, bvFTD = 118), all algorithms achieved high accuracy (80% to 90%) and discriminatory ability (AUC = 0.89 to 0.95). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,616 Evidence: low

The Level 3 model achieved high classification performance (AUC: 93.98%), and the Level 1 model achieved comparable performance (AUC: 91.53%). 5 key findings →

Participants: 31,081 Evidence: low

Significant alterations were observed in 7 lipid classes and 65 specific lipid species in DLB compared to AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Depression was a strong risk factor for incident dementia with an OR of 1.76 (95% CI 1.63 to 1.90), a relationship which was found to be specific to depression rather than commonly proposed confounders. 5 key findings →

Participants: 557 Evidence: low

Of the 1216 cases reported, Alzheimer's disease (60.5%) was the most common subtype, followed by vascular dementia (24.5%). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Concordance of Biological and Clinical Staging of Alzheimer Disease Pathology in Down Syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2026-01-12

This cross-sectional study examines data for participants in the Alzheimer Biomarker Consortium–Down Syndrome study to gauge the concordance of clinical and biological Alzheimer disease staging. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

In a heterogeneous autopsy sample, AD and LB pathology both contribute to cholinergic basal forebrain degeneration whereas hippocampus atrophy is more specifically related to AD pathology. 4 key findings →

Participants: 248 Evidence: low

Alpha-synuclein (aSyn) post-translational modifications (PTM), especially phosphorylation at serine 129 and C-terminal truncations, are highly enriched in Lewy bodies (LB), Lewy neurites, and other pathological aggregates in Parkinson's disease and synucleinopathies. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Glymphatic activity in bvFTD correlated strongly with vascular dysfunction and astrocytic activation, and was associated with brain changes and clinical severity. 5 key findings →

Participants: 61 Evidence: low

Striatal dopaminergic patterns and clinical features in frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Brain Communications 2025-01-01

Moreover, a theoretical model proposes that frontotemporal dementia manifestations result from a deficit in goal-directed behaviour, which may be related to altered dopamine control of the frontostriatal circuitry. 4 key findings →

Participants: 139 Evidence: low

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a neurodegenerative disorder primarily affecting the frontal and temporal lobes, leading to significant impairments in executive function, social behavior, and emotional regulation. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study 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 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