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.

Neuropathological alterations in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine 2011-09-01

The neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer disease (AD) include "positive" lesions such as amyloid plaques and cerebral amyloid angiopathy, neurofibrillary tangles, and glial responses, and "negative" lesions such as neuronal and synaptic loss. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Furthermore, the CSF biomarker analyses provide a first insight into the potentially predominant pathogenetic mechanism(s) underlying the association between AD risk and PICALM. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 4,254 Evidence: moderate

Donepezil may effectively and safely improve overall functioning of DS patients with severe cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

The study confirms the occurrence of increased incidence of chronic illnesses in long-term cancer survivors attributable to underlying lifestyle and/or cancer treatments. 2 key findings →

Participants: 26,213 Evidence: moderate

Clinicopathological correlations in corticobasal degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2011-08-01

CBD was associated with 4 clinical syndromes: progressive nonfluent aphasia (n = 5), behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (n = 5), executive-motor (n = 7), and posterior cortical atrophy (n = 1). 2 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

Visinin-like protein-1: diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2011-08-01

These findings suggest that CSF VILIP-1 and VILIP-1/Aβ42 offer diagnostic utility for early AD, and can predict future cognitive impairment in cognitively normal individuals similarly to tau and tau/Aβ42, respectively. 3 key findings →

Participants: 211 Evidence: moderate

The European Union AddNeuroMed program and the US-based Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) are two large multi-center initiatives designed to collect and validate biomarker data for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,074 Evidence: moderate

In older adults, variable agreement between in vivo imaging and CERAD NP score was observed. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Senile plaques are a prominent pathological feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD), but little is understood about the association of glial cells with plaques or about the dynamics of glial responses through the disease course. 2 key findings →

Participants: 91 Evidence: low

Disruption of functional connectivity between brain regions may represent an early functional consequence of β-amyloid pathology prior to clinical Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Declines in heart disease and stroke mortality rates are conventionally attributed to reductions in cigarette smoking, recognition and treatment of hypertension and diabetes, effective medications to improve serum lipid levels and to reduce clot formation, and general lifestyle improvements. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Outcomes of mild cognitive impairment by definition: a population study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2011-06-01

As ascertained by several operational definitions, MCI is a heterogeneous entity at the population level but progresses to dementia at rates higher than in normal elderly individuals. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,982 Evidence: moderate

Identification and validation of novel cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for staging early Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. PloS one 2011-01-12

These six markers describe six clinicopathological stages from cognitive normalcy to mild dementia, including stages defined by increased risk of cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Participants: 24 Evidence: moderate

The aim of the study was to compare the long-term efficacy of high versus low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), applied bilaterally over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), on cognitive function and cortical excitability of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Progression of Alzheimer dementia (AD) is highly variable. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Relating clinical symptoms to neuroanatomical profiles of brain damage and ultimately to tissue pathology is a key challenge in the field of neurodegenerative disease and particularly relevant to the heterogeneous disorders that comprise the frontotemporal lobar degeneration spectrum. 4 key findings →

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 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