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.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of Alzheimer's disease drugs: A meta-analysis and systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Medicine 2024-04-19

All drugs improved the cognitive function, with the effect value ranging from -1.23 (95% CI -2.17 to -0.30) for 20 mg memantine to -3.29 (95% CI -4.14 to -2.45) for 32 mg galantamine. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease (AD) affects millions of people worldwide. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

While most studies to date have been cross-sectional, limiting the establishment of causal relationships, the potential benefits of trace lithium for suicide prevention and dementia prevention are notable, especially in the absence of radical treatments for suicide and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Hearing loss is highly prevalent in dementia; however, people with dementia are less likely to use hearing aids consistently than people with intact cognition are. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The cognitive reserve (CR) hypothesis posits that individuals can differ in how their brain function is disrupted by pathology associated with aging and neurodegeneration. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 490 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive dysfunction is common in late life depression (LLD) and is a major risk factor for dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

We searched 122 studies, of which 90 were included in our analysis. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Among those newly diagnosed, Black and Hispanic patients encountered higher total costs compared to White patients, and ADRD patients living in the most vulnerable areas experienced the highest total costs compared to patients living in other regions. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 742,175 Evidence: moderate

Physical activity is a promising preventative strategy for Alzheimer's disease: it is associated with lower dementia risk, better cognition, greater brain volume and lower brain beta-amyloid. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

These findings indicate that plasma pTau181, plasma pTau217 and amyloid-β PET convey overlapping information and therefore predict the dynamic phase of asymptomatic amyloid-β accumulation with comparable performances. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 75 Evidence: moderate

In Alzheimer's disease, amyloid-beta (Aβ) triggers the trans-synaptic spread of tau pathology, and aberrant synaptic activity has been shown to promote tau spreading. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 93 Evidence: moderate

US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic-review Evidence: high

SGLT2 Inhibitor Use and Risk of Dementia and Parkinson Disease Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Neurology 2024-09-18

In this nationwide population-based study, SGLT2i use significantly reduced the risks of neurodegenerative disorders in patients with type 2 diabetes independent of various factors including comorbidities and bioclinical parameters. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 358,862 Evidence: moderate

Hearing Loss, Hearing Aid Use, and Risk of Dementia in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery 2024-02-01

The results of this cohort study suggest that hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, especially among people not using hearing aids, suggesting that hearing aids might prevent or delay the onset and progression of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 573,088 Evidence: moderate

At 6 months, compared with usual care, participants receiving the intervention had better QOL (QOL-AD score, 0.09 [95% CI, -0.63 to 0.82] vs -0.88 [95% CI, -1.62 to -0.13]; treatment effect estimate, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.07-1.86; P = .03). 4 key findings →

Participants: 612 Evidence: high

In this 3-year randomized clinical trial, ω-3 treatment was safe and well-tolerated but failed to reach significant reductions in WML accumulation or neuronal integrity breakdown among all participants, which may be attributable to sample size limitations. 5 key findings →

Participants: 102 Evidence: high

In the discovery cohort, the mean (SD) age was 70.9 (8.5) years, 191 (58%) were male, the mean (SD) MMSE score was 27.1 (1.9), and 110 individuals with MCI (33%) converted to dementia (71 to AD dementia). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 110 Evidence: moderate

Brain clocks, which quantify discrepancies between brain age and chronological age, hold promise for understanding brain health and disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,306 Evidence: low

Higher WMH volume was associated with older age, lower CSF amyloid-β levels, hypertension, and smoking history (all p ≤ 0.001), as well as cognitive status (MCI, p < 0.001; dementia, p = 0.008), but not with CSF tau levels. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,803 Evidence: moderate

The CDR+NACC FTLD global score interacted with time on battery percentage such that participants with prodromal or symptomatic FTLD demonstrated less change in battery percentage throughout the day (a proxy for less smartphone use) than clinically normal participants (P<.001 in both cases). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate

Genetic variants for Alzheimer's disease and comorbid conditions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2024-11-10

Targeted analysis of 20 SNPs that were reported to be associated with ADRD revealed that six were significantly associated with dual-disease outcomes, specifically congestive heart failure and cancer. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,177 Evidence: moderate

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

↑ 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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    Where this research is being discussed: events