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.

Neuroimaging biomarkers and CSF sTREM2 levels in Alzheimer's disease: a longitudinal study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Scientific reports 2024-07-03

Understanding the exact pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the involvement of triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) related microglia activation is crucial for the development of clinical trials targeting microglia activation at different stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,001 Evidence: moderate

Participants with CIND displayed lower perfusion in the PCC+PCu relative to participants who were CN, but there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in amyloid burden in this region. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 113 Evidence: moderate

CL was associated with syndromic (F = 4.42, p = 0.014) and etiological diagnosis (F = -12.66, p < 0.001), with Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients showing the highest amyloid burden (62.9 ± 27.5), followed by dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) (25.3 ± 35.5) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) (16.7 ± 24.5), and finally frontotemporal lobe degeneration (FTLD) (5.0 ± 17.22, t = -12.66, p < 0.001). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 157 Evidence: moderate

Aducanumab is a novel disease-modifying anti-amyloid-beta (Aβ) human monoclonal antibody specifically targeted to the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The results showed that intestinal expression of GLP-1 1 could reduce the intestinal pathogenic genus such as Enterobacteriaceae and was obviously associated with a greater number of beneficial genera such as Lactobacillus and Akkermansia. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Predictors of response to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in dementia: A systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Frontiers in neuroscience 2022-09-20

We identified 1,994 records in five different databases; after exclusion of duplicates, title and abstract screening, and full-text retrieval, 122 studies were finally included. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Anticancer drugs repurposed for Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2021-05-05

Based on a structured search on the ClinicalTrials.gov and the EudraCT databases, we identified 13 clinical trials testing 11 different approved anticancer agents (five tyrosine kinase inhibitors, two retinoid X receptor agonists, two immunomodulatory agents, one histone deacetylase inhibitor, and one monoclonal antibody) in the AD continuum. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Huntington's Disease Drug Development: A Phase 3 Pipeline Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) 2023-10-24

Huntington's Disease (HD) is a severely debilitating neurodegenerative disorder in which sufferers exhibit different combinations of movement disorders, dementia, and behavioral or psychiatric abnormalities. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

This critical review explores the review material on physical activity combined with cognitive stimulation interventions in older adults with cognitive impairment and/or dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Sleep duration had an inverted U-shape relationship with cognitive scores (P <.001); and sleep quality had a positive linear relationship with cognitive scores (P <.001). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 10,768 Evidence: moderate

Of 1,164 participants (mean age 73.5 years, 64% women), 580 (49.8%) had mild hearing impairment and 196 (16.8%) had moderate/severe hearing impairment. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,164 Evidence: moderate

The combinations of hearing and proprioceptive impairment and hearing, vision, and proprioceptive impairment, were positively correlated with cDVR (β = 0.087 and p = 0.036, β = 0.110 and p = 0.018, respectively). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 174 Evidence: moderate

The present study showed that higher educational levels were related to better general cognitive function, executive function, memory, and information processing speed in PD patients, whereas no significant association was showed between educational levels and visuospatial function, language in PD patients. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis 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