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 1,951–1,975 of 2,538 studies marked Peer-reviewed scoring ≥ 67 out of 100 (page 79 of 102) · 29,780 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.

We demonstrate that using additional phenotype data previously collected by genetic studies to tackle phenotypic heterogeneity in MDD can successfully lead to the discovery of genetic risk factor despite reduced sample size. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Amyloid chronicity provides unique information about cognitive decline and neurofibrillary tangle development and may be useful to investigate preclinical Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 257 Evidence: moderate

We found little evidence to support wide-ranging effects of statins on health outcomes beyond their established beneficial effect on vascular disease. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 129,288 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease, a progressive neurodegenerative pathology, is characterized by the accumulation of Amyloid-β plaques in the brain. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

In this FTIH study the Fc-inactivated anti-Aβ mAb GSK933776 engaged its target in plasma and CSF without causing brain ARIA-E/H in patients with mild AD or MCI. 1 key finding →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 18 Evidence: low

The steady-state plasma PK results were closely aligned with the previous 2-week PK in the ALZ-801 phase 1b study in APOE4 carrier subjects with AD, as well as a phase 1 7-day PK study in heathy elderly volunteers. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 24 Evidence: moderate

Cognition averaged 0.8 MMSE (mini-mental state examination) points better (95% CI 0.5-1.2; p<0.0001) and functionality 1.0 BADLS points better (0.5-1.6; p<0.0001) with donepezil over the first 2 years. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The results of this trial support the hypothesis that memantine treatment leads to functional improvement and reduces care dependence in severely demented patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 166 Evidence: low

There is a lack of midlife specific data, limited data on VaD, and a lack of geographical representation for many risk factors for dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Adverse effects offset advantages in the efficacy of atypical antipsychotic drugs for the treatment of psychosis, aggression, or agitation in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A simple exercise program, 1 hour twice a week, led to significantly slower decline in ADL score in patients with AD living in a nursing home than routine medical care. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Adults who engage in leisure time aerobic and muscle strengthening activities at levels recommended by the 2018 physical activity guidelines for Americans show greatly reduced risk of all cause and cause specific mortality. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 268 Evidence: moderate

During the aging process, physical capabilities (e.g., muscular strength) and cognitive functions (e.g., memory) gradually decrease. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The association of physical activity with dementia and its subtypes has remained controversial in the literature and has continued to be a subject of debate among researchers. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Low physical activity is associated with a higher risk for dementia in older individuals, suggesting that a reduced risk of dementia and higher brain volumes may be additional health benefits of maintaining physical activity into old age. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,714 Evidence: moderate

Baseline EDS was associated with increased longitudinal Aβ accumulation in elderly persons without dementia, suggesting that those with EDS may be more vulnerable to pathologic changes associated with Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 283 Evidence: moderate

Screening for IC impairments identifies older adults at higher risk of incident frailty and incident IADL/ADL disability. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 759 Evidence: moderate

Several studies with animal research associate air pollution in Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuropathology, but the actual impact of air pollution on the risk of AD is unknown. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 95,690 Evidence: moderate

An emerging body of evidence has raised concern regarding the potentially harmful effects of inhaled pollutants on the central nervous system during the last decade. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.

1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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