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.

ABSTRACTObjective:To compare the accuracy of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in tracking mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

By pooling two long-running community studies from the same region of Pennsylvania, researchers compared dementia rates across people born in different decades, from the 1900s to the 1940s. Each successively younger birth cohort had a substantially lower risk of developing dementia at a given age, with the youngest group's risk about a quarter of the oldest group's. This adds US evidence, independent of Framingham, that generational health improvements are lowering dementia risk. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 3,010 Evidence: high

Alcohol consumption and risk of dementia: 23 year follow-up of Whitehall II cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. BMJ 2018-08-01

This 23-year study found a U-shaped relationship between alcohol and dementia risk: people who abstained from alcohol in midlife, as well as those who drank heavily (more than 14 units, about 14 standard drinks, per week), both had a higher risk of developing dementia than people who drank moderately. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 9,087 Evidence: moderate

Rates of Amyloid Imaging Positivity in Patients With Primary Progressive Aphasia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2018-03-01

Inclusion criteria included clinical diagnosis of PPA; availability of complete speech, language, and cognitive testing; magnetic resonance imaging performed within 6 months of the cognitive evaluation; and PET carbon 11-labeled Pittsburgh Compound-B or florbetapir F 18 brain scan results. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 109 Evidence: moderate

Future research should examine whether minimizing drawbacks at the pre-imaging stage has adverse consequences on results disclosure. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 59 Evidence: high

Metformin should continue to be used as a first line therapy for diabetes in patients at risk of developing dementia or Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Stroke, dementia, and hypertension are associated with late-onset epilepsy; however, the role of other vascular and lifestyle factors remains unclear. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 792 Evidence: moderate

We found no evidence to support the theory that natural variation in cumulative exposure to endogenous oestrogens across the reproductive period influences dementia incidence in late life. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Compared with controls, patients with idiopathic REM sleep behaviour disorder had decreased colonic 11 C-donepezil uptake (-0·322, 95% CI -0·112 to -0·531; p=0·0020), 123 I-MIBG heart:mediastinum ratio (-0·508, -0·353 to -0·664; p 18 F-DOPA uptake (Ki; -0·0023, -0·0009 to -0·0037; p=0·0013). 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate

A total of 16 084 European adults from 8 cohort studies (mean age range, 56.9±12.3-82.1±4.2 years) of the European Eye Epidemiology (E3) consortium. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 16 Evidence: high

The diagnostic performance of plasma biomarkers was poor (area under the curve [AUC] between 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·62] and 0·74 [0·66-0·82]) except for plasma NfL concentrations, which had an AUC of 0·88 (0·82-0·93) for the differentiation of the asymptomatic group versus the prodromal Alzheimer's disease group and 0·95 (0·92-0·98) for the asymptomatic group versus the Alzheimer's disease dementia group. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 282 Evidence: low

The higher risk of AD among blacks may stem from lower level of cognitive test performance persisting throughout the observation period rather than faster rate of late-life cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Participants: 7,735 Evidence: high

White matter lesions: Spatial heterogeneity, links to risk factors, cognition, genetics, and atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2018-08-03

These results support the hypothesis that the appearance of WMH follows age and disease-dependent regional distribution patterns, potentially influenced by differential underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, and possibly with a differential link to vascular and neurodegenerative changes. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,836 Evidence: moderate

Forty-one studies were included. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

PARO may have some effect on motor activity of older people with dementia in long-term care, but not on sleep patterns. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Home-based CCT Adaptive WM training appears more effective than Non-Adaptive training in older adults from different cultural backgrounds. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

APOE ε4 count was associated with higher TDP-43 proteinopathy stage (odds ratio [OR] 2·0, 95% CI 1·6-2·6; p=1·9 × 10 -9 ) and TDP-43 burden (0·40, 0·28-0·52; p=1·2 × 10 -10 ). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 15 Evidence: moderate

The experiences and preparedness of informal carers is a reflection of their personal response, but the distress experienced highlights the significant need of adequate support availability and of enhancing nursing staffs' dementia expertise to maximize their role in facilitating best interest decision-making. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The most common place of death in patients with dementia is the retirement or nursing home, followed by hospital and home. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 10,364 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 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