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 14,101–14,125 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 565 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.

We identified several key themes: surrogates more often chose comfort care for care recipients with dementia, particularly at advanced stages. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,931 Evidence: low

Living with dementia requires decision making about numerous topics including daily activities and advance care planning (ACP). 1 key finding →

Design: umbrella review Participants: 21 Evidence: low

Pulse pressure, but not mean arterial pressure, significantly mediated the relationship between age and white matter hyperintensity load. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The plasma PlGF level was significantly elevated in patients with SIVD compared with CUCs, and showed a high accuracy with an area under the curve of 0.893. 5 key findings →

Participants: 102 Evidence: moderate

Mapping the Association of Cerebral Small Vessel Disease, Gray Matter Integrity, and Cognitive Function

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Neurology 2025-10-17

= 0.026). Complementing previous research that focuses on CSVD and white matter changes, our study highlights abnormal gray matter integrity as a possible link between small vessel pathology and cognitive disorders. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

• Patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and cognitive impairment demonstrated a significantly greater burden of white matter hyperintensities (WMH), with the highest burden observed in those with PD dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 122 Evidence: low

They are often found in middle-aged individuals and are associated with a greater risk of stroke and vascular dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,072 Evidence: low

We examined state variations in assisted living (AL) regulatory policies for admission/retention, staffing/training, medication management, and dementia care. 3 key findings →

Participants: 46 Evidence: low

Alzheimer's blood-based biomarker (BBM) tests using single biomarkers or ratios are well characterized, but head-to-head comparisons of multi-analyte algorithmic tests on shared cohorts are lacking. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 192 Evidence: moderate

Loneliness, distinct from social isolation, is a subjective sense of social disconnection exacerbating a public health crisis among older adults. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Latino family caregivers of people with dementia face significant challenges and limited access to support. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The advancement of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD), along with the approval of three amyloid-targeting therapies in the US and several other countries, represents a significant development in the treatment landscape, offering new hope for addressing this once untreatable chronic progressive disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent positive results of three phase III anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody trials are transforming the landscape of disease-modifying therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease, following several decades of failures. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Diagnostic pathways for patients presenting with cognitive complaints may vary across geographies. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 6,744 Evidence: low

To determine the risk for dementia in neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) using a Finnish nationwide cohort of individuals with NF1, and data from national registries. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,349 Evidence: moderate

These findings suggest that OCT can detect functional and morphologic changes in the retina of carriers of familial Alzheimer disease who are cognitively unimpaired several years before clinical onset, suggesting that OCT findings and retinal vascular parameters may be biomarkers prior to the onset of cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

A valid quantitative imaging method for the measurement of amyloid deposition in humans could improve Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis and antiamyloid therapy assessment.

↑ 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