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.

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

Assessment of Racial Disparities in Biomarkers for Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2019-03-01

There were no racial differences in the frequency of cerebral ischemic lesions noted on results of brain magnetic resonance imaging, mean cortical standardized uptake value ratios for Pittsburgh compound B, or for amyloid-β42 concentrations in CSF. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,255 Evidence: moderate

Blood Pressure Variability and Progression of Clinical Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) 2019-09-23

Blood pressure variability (BPV) has been shown to have predictive value over blood pressure (BP) levels alone in stroke patients. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 460 Evidence: high

As there is currently no cure for dementia, there is an urgent need for preventive strategies. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Associations between tau, Aβ, and cortical thickness with cognition in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2019-01-09

Our findings suggest that tau PET is more sensitive than Aβ PET and measures of cortical thickness for detecting early cognitive changes in preclinical AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 106 Evidence: low

The regulation of vasculature is a prominent causal component of probable AD. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Thirty-five studies were analyzed with data from 3268 caregivers (pooled mean age [SD of sample means], 63.48 [5.99] years; 76.7% female) were analyzed. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The evidence base for treating a range of nonmotor symptoms in PD has grown substantially in recent years. 2 key findings →

Participants: 37 Evidence: high

Despite the promise of a multitude of sensors and devices that can be applied, there are no agreed-upon standards for digital biomarkers, nor are there comprehensive evidence-based results for which digital biomarkers may be demonstrated to be most effective. 3 key findings →

Participants: 279 Evidence: low

Blood biomarkers able to diagnose Alzheimer disease (AD) at the preclinical stage would enable trial enrollment when the disease is potentially reversible. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 161 Evidence: moderate

Dementia risk may be attenuated by physical activity (PA); however, the specific activity levels optimal for dementia prevention are unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,604 Evidence: moderate

PD dementia (PDD) is associated with α-synuclein propagation, but coexistent Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology may coexist. 4 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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