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.

This trial found no benefit of 24-month multidomain intervention with focus on improvement in lifestyle and vascular risk factors on the incidence of poststroke cognitive decline in comparison with standard stroke care. 1 key finding →

Participants: 101 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's dementia affects more than 40 million people worldwide with substantial increases in prevalence anticipated. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 24,000 Evidence: moderate

Substantial variability occurs in the prevalence of "PiB-positive" studies in subjects with Parkinsonism and cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Low daytime SBP was independently associated with a greater progression of cognitive decline in older patients with dementia and MCI among those treated with AHDs. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 172 Evidence: moderate

Previous studies have evaluated gene expression in Alzheimer's disease (AD) brains to identify mechanistic processes, but have been limited by the size of the datasets studied. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

A number of health and lifestyle factors are thought to contribute to cognitive decline associated with age but cannot be easily modified by the individual patient. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

We recommend development and testing of decision aids targeting the decisions carers report finding most distressing, including those around where people should live, accessing services, and end of life treatments. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

The economic evidence for advance care planning: Systematic review of evidence

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Palliative medicine 2015-06-09

There is need for clearer articulation of the likely mechanisms by which advance care planning can lead to reduced care costs or improved cost-effectiveness, particularly for people who retain capacity. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Animal models point towards a key role of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in mediating exercise-induced structural and functional changes in the hippocampus. 2 key findings →

Participants: 21 Evidence: low

Meta-analysis of modifiable risk factors for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2015-08-20

Effective interventions in diet, medications, biochemical exposures, psychological condition, pre-existing disease and lifestyle may decrease new incidence of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The Use of Cholinesterase Inhibitors Across All Stages of Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Drugs & aging 2015-07-01

Current pharmacological therapy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) includes the cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine and the N-methyl D-aspartate receptor antagonist memantine. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Cerebrospinal Fluid Patterns and the Risk of Future Dementia in Early, Incident Parkinson Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2015-10-01

Among the 128 study participants, the 104 patients with early PD had a different CSF pattern compared with the 13 patients with progressive supranuclear palsy (baseline area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.87; P < .0001) and the 30 control participants (baseline area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.69; P = .0021). 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 104 Evidence: moderate

Age, Sex, and APOE ε4 Effects on Memory, Brain Structure, and β-Amyloid Across the Adult Life Span

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2015-05-01

Overall, memory worsened from age 30 years through the 90s. The HVa worsened gradually from age 30 years to the mid-60s and more steeply beyond that age. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,246 Evidence: low

Polygenic Overlap Between C-Reactive Protein, Plasma Lipids, and Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Circulation 2015-04-10

By conditioning on the genetic association with the cardiovascular phenotypes, we identify novel AD susceptibility loci, including 2 genome-wide significant variants conferring increased risk for AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Relationship of regional brain β-amyloid to gait speed

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2015-12-07

More research is needed to elucidate the neural mechanisms underlying these regional associations, which may involve motor and sensorimotor circuits hitherto largely neglected in the pathophysiology of AD. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

When compared to post-mortem amyloid burden, low proposed thresholds were more sensitive than high thresholds (sensitivities: distribution volume ratiolow 81.0%, standard uptake value ratiolow 83.3%; distribution volume ratiohigh 61.9%, standard uptake value ratiohigh 62.5%) for CERAD moderate-to-frequent neuritic plaques, with similar specificity (distribution volume ratiolow 95.8%; standard uptake value ratiolow, distribution volume ratiohigh and standard uptake value ratiohigh 100.0%). 2 key findings →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

↑ 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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