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.

The systemic underrepresentation of Black participants in AD research impacts the ability to generalize research findings and determine the effectiveness and safety of disease-modifying treatments. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 629 Evidence: moderate

Both plasma p-tau181 and GFAP appear to reflect disease progression, as indicated by 7T MR-derived brain changes which are not limited to areas known to be affected by tau pathology and neuroinflammation measured by MRS myo-inositol, respectively. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 127 Evidence: moderate

This study suggests that the prognostic capacity of plasma NfL may be amplified in individuals with Aβ or hypertension. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 720 Evidence: moderate

Through interactive presentations promoting brain health, the programme provides for personal reflection that may enhance capability, opportunity and motivation for behaviour change. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

This study provides insights into neuroplasticity and adaptive changes resulting from cognitive training in patients with VCIND, with implications for potential therapeutic strategies. 2 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

Almost every recent Alzheimer's disease (AD) genome-wide association study (GWAS) has performed meta-analysis to combine studies with clinical diagnosis of AD with studies that use proxy phenotypes based on parental disease history. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Tau accumulation and its spatial progression across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Brain communications 2024-02-07

Within each Braak stage, however, the pattern of abnormality demonstrated significant heterogeneity such that the overlap of abnormal regions across participants averaged less than 50%, particularly in persons with mild cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 832 Evidence: moderate

To validate our in vivo results, we examined 1610 autopsy cases from an Arizona-based neuropathology cohort on three main vascular pathological features: cerebral amyloid angiopathy; white matter rarefaction; and infarcts. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 677 Evidence: moderate

These findings revealed the dynamic changes of microstructural and macrostructural indicators and their associations with AD and SNAP, providing novel insights into understanding upstream and downstream events of cMD in neurodegenerative disease. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 617 Evidence: moderate

Serum GFAP levels correlate with astrocyte reactivity, post-mortem brain atrophy and neurofibrillary tangles

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Brain 2024-05-03

The main findings demonstrated an association between serum GFAP level and post-mortem tau pathology (β = 12.85; P < 0.001) that was independent of amyloid deposits (β = 13.23; P = 0.02). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 139 Evidence: moderate

Participants receiving CDCM showed significantly fewer behavioral and psychological symptoms (adjusted mean difference [AMD] in NPI score, -10.26 [95% CI, -16.95 to -3.58]; P = .003; Cohen d, -0.78 [95% CI, -1.09 to -0.46]), better mental health (AMD in SF-12 Mental Component Summary score, 2.26 [95% CI, 0.31-4.21]; P = .02; Cohen d, 0.26 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.51]), and lower caregiver burden (AMD in BIZA-D score, -0.59 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.37]; P Conclusions and relevance In this secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial, CDCM was associated with improved patient, caregiver, and health system-relevant outcomes over 36 months beyond the intervention period. 3 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 428 Evidence: high

Glymphatic failure may precede amyloid pathology, and predicts amyloid deposition, neurodegeneration, and clinical progression in AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 419 Evidence: moderate

This randomized clinical trial demonstrated the positive effects of rTMS on cognitive and functional performance, and the plastic changes in the hippocampal-cortical network. 5 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: high

High-Risk Medications in Persons Living With Dementia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2024-12-01

These findings suggest medication-specific educational mailings targeting patients with AD or ADRD and their clinicians are not effective in reducing the use of high-risk medications. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 787 Evidence: high

AI-based differential diagnosis of dementia etiologies on multimodal data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Nature medicine 2024-07-04

Differential diagnosis of dementia remains a challenge in neurology due to symptom overlap across etiologies, yet it is crucial for formulating early, personalized management strategies. 1 key finding →

Participants: 51,269 Evidence: low

Variants of the gene triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative disorders. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

GRN mutations cause progranulin haploinsufficiency, which eventually leads to frontotemporal dementia (FTD-GRN). 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: moderate

Dose-response relationship between computerized cognitive training and cognitive improvement

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. NPJ digital medicine 2024-08-15

Although computerized cognitive training (CCT) is an effective digital intervention for cognitive impairment, its dose-response relationship is understudied. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 8,709 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

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

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

↑ 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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