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 16,701–16,725 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 669 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.

Recently, low-sensitive plasma assays have been replaced by new ultra-sensitive assays such as single molecule enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Simoa), the Mesoscale Discovery (MSD) platform, and immunoprecipitation-mass spectrometry (IP-MS) with higher accuracy in the determination of plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Cerebral and extracerebral cholesterol metabolism and CSF markers of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Biochemical pharmacology 2013-01-03

The disturbances of the cholesterol synthesis and metabolism described in Alzheimer's disease (AD) may be both a consequence of the neurodegenerative process and a contributor to the pathogenesis. 2 key findings →

Participants: 86 Evidence: low

The CSF Abeta42/Abeta40 ratio improves differentiation of AD patients from VaD, DLB and non-AD dementia patients, when compared to Abeta42 alone, and is a more easily interpretable alternative to the combination of Abeta42, p-tau and t-tau when differentiating AD from either FTD or non-AD dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 69 Evidence: low

Our results support further efforts to prospectively validate the use of Q Abeta42/p-tau as a biomarker to discriminate between AD and VaD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 86 Evidence: low

Plasma NfL indicates neurodegeneration while plasma p-tau181 levels can serve as a biomarker of cerebral AD pathology and cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) protects the brain but is also an important obstacle for the effective delivery of therapeutics in Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Increasing life expectancy has led to an aging population, which has consequently increased the prevalence of dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent studies highlight phosphorylated tau (p-tau) at threonine tau 217 (p-tau217) as a new promising plasma biomarker for pathological changes implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the specific brain pathological events related to the alteration in p-tau217 plasma levels are still largely unknown. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Lateral ventricle administration, but not caudal vein injection of BMSC-exos improved AD-like behaviors in the STZ-injected mouse model, as indicated by the increased number of rearing, increased frequency to the central area, and increased duration and distance traveled in the central area in the OFT, and improved preference index of the novel object in the NOR. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In an effort to examine changes that precede synapse loss, we have measured amyloid-beta and a series of damage markers in the synaptic compartment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) cases. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The data revealed that 5XFAD mice that received hMSC-EV treatment behaved significantly better in cognitive tests than saline treated 5XFAD mice, with no significant change between EV-treated 5XFAD mice and NT mice. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Four fluid-based biomarkers have been developed into diagnostic tests for Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology: the ratio of 42 to 40 amino acid-long amyloid β, a marker of plaque pathology; total-tau and phosphorylated tau, markers of AD-related changes in tau metabolism and secretion; and neurofilament light, a marker of neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The PrecivityAD™ assays are precise, accurate, sensitive, and linear over a wide analytical range, free from significant interferences, and suitable for use in the clinical laboratory. 3 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