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.

Our results encourage an independent validation cohort study to confirm the indication that the plasma Aβ 1-40 /Aβ 1-42 ratio, assessed via Simoa, may improve future standard of care and clinical trial design. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 276 Evidence: moderate

Evidence-informed practical recommendations for increasing physical activity among persons living with HIV

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. AIDS 2019-02-01

Non-ART polypharmacy is common among PLWH and associated with an increasing risk of hospitalization and mortality [1]; thus, nonpharmacologic management of comorbidities is critical for PLWH who may experience an earlier onset and a greater burden of comorbidities. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Relationship of amyloid-β1-42 in blood and brain amyloid: Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Brain communications 2019-11-27

A blood test that predicts the extent of amyloid plaques in the brain and risk of Alzheimer's disease would have important benefits for the early identification of higher risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease and the evaluation of new preventative therapies. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 160 Evidence: moderate

Caregiving strain will be collected from care partner/family member only. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

This systematic review will summarise existing high-quality primary studies on computerised-cognitive interventions for MCI and dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

In this study, cortical amyloid moderated the association between worsening depressive symptoms and declining cognition in older adults. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 276 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive testing follow-up occurred for 1 to 18 years (mean [SD], 0.98 [2.25] years); autopsy-verified diagnoses were available for 120 of 845 participants with diseases (14.2%). 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 913 Evidence: moderate

We were unable to detect a difference in HRQOL for screening for ADRD among older adults. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,008 Evidence: high

Risks and benefits of unapproved disease-modifying treatments for neurodegenerative disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Neurology 2019-12-02

Assignment to active treatment was not beneficial for any of the indications examined and may have been slightly disadvantageous for patients with Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 39,875 Evidence: high

In this study, lower AD signature region volumes, brain microhemorrhages, higher WMH volumes, and infarcts were risk factors associated with dementia in older community-based residents. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,553 Evidence: moderate

As one of few meta-analyses comparing different quantities of physical activity and exercise interventions for AD in details, our study suggests that physical activity and exercise can improve cognition of older adults with AD. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 673 Evidence: high

Combining modifiable risk factors and risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. BMJ open 2019-01-25

The strength of the reported associations, the consistency across studies and the suggestion of a dose response supports a need to keep modifiable risk factor exposure to a minimum and to avoid exposure to additional modifiable risks. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

No statistically significant pooled association emerged between MetS and incident dementia and AD. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 18,313 Evidence: high

Presence on T2-weighted images of white matter hyperintensities (WMH) has been previously shown to be more commonly associated with GRN mutations rather than other forms of FTD. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 336 Evidence: moderate

The average age in our 2 groups was 81.1 years, and 61.4% of our population was female. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 300 Evidence: moderate

A nutritional approach could be a promising strategy to prevent or slow the progression of neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, since there is no effective therapy for these diseases so far. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Cost of dementia in Medicare managed care: a systematic literature review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. The American journal of managed care 2019-08-01

Despite the growth in Medicare managed care enrollment, only 9 papers report the costs of care for individuals with ADRD within these plans, and only 1 study reports data less than 10 years old. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

↑ 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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    Where this research is being discussed: events