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 15,251–15,275 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 611 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.

Single-cell analysis reveals inflammatory interactions driving macular degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Nature communications 2023-05-05

Due to commonalities in pathophysiology, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) represents a uniquely accessible model to investigate therapies for neurodegenerative diseases, leading us to examine whether pathways of disease progression are shared across neurodegenerative conditions. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

To assess the ability of [18F]PI-2620 to detect regional tau burden in non-Alzheimer's disease tauopathies compared with Alzheimer's disease, patients with progressive supranuclear palsy (n = 3), corticobasal syndrome (n = 2), corticobasal degeneration (n = 1) or Alzheimer's disease (n = 8), and healthy controls (n = 7) were recruited. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Radiotracer [18F]Flortaucipir is an FDA-approved diagnostic agent for PET imaging of density and distribution of abnormal tau protein deposition (tauopathies) in Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Tau and the fractionated default mode network in atypical Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Brain communications 2022-03-09

Alzheimer's disease-related atrophy in the posterior cingulate cortex, a key node of the default mode network, is present in the early stages of disease progression across clinical phenotypic variants of the disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Selectively Disrupted Functional Connectivity Networks in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2015-12-11

We found that patients with T2DM exhibited cognitive function declines and functional connectivity disruptions within the default mode network, left frontal parietal network, and sensorimotor network. 3 key findings →

Participants: 37 Evidence: low

Resting-state fMRI changes in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2011-08-20

Regional functional connectivity (FC) of 39 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), 23 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 43 healthy elderly controls was studied using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI). 4 key findings →

Participants: 39 Evidence: low

In the last 20 years, research focused on developing retinal imaging as a source of potential biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases, has increased significantly. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The role of optical coherence tomography in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. International journal of retina and vitreous 2016-10-17

The purpose of this article is to review the main findings on OCT in AD patients, to discuss the role of this important diagnostic tool in these patients and how OCT technology may be useful in understanding morphological retinal changes in AD. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Lecanemab is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody, recently approved in the UK as a treatment for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) in adults who are apolipoprotein E ε4 gene (APOE4) heterozygotes or non-carriers.A group of UK neurologists, old age psychiatrists and geriatricians with expertise in AD convened to agree appropriate use recommendations for lecanemab in UK clinical practice. 5 key findings →

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 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