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 2,051–2,075 of 3,821 studies published 2025 (page 83 of 153) · 27,380 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.

The annual number of health insurance claims for p-tau181 testing gradually increased from 1358 (2014) to 3420 (2023); 79-86% of claims were from inpatient settings throughout the study period. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

With the global population rapidly aging, dementia has emerged as a major public health concern. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The advent of disease-modifying treatments and risk-reduction strategies in the clinic have increased the demand for biomarkers for early disease detection, prediction of clinical course of disease, individual risk prediction and monitoring of treatment effects. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In this study, we developed a newly designed μPAD for CL immunoassays, leveraging smartphone-based image capture, valve-regulated reaction process, and app-driven result analysis to enable fully automated detection. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Development of Neurodegenerative Disease Diagnosis and Monitoring from Traditional to Digital Biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Biosensors 2025-02-11

Monitoring and assessing the progression of symptoms in neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, are critical for improving patient outcomes. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

APOE genotype determines cell-type-specific pathological landscape of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Neuron 2025-03-19

The apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene is the strongest genetic risk modifier for Alzheimer's disease (AD), with the APOE4 allele increasing risk and APOE2 decreasing it compared with the common APOE3 allele. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Comparison of the ApoE allelic variants in the formation of intracerebral Aβ deposits

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Neurobiology of disease 2025-09-15

In the SAA-APP knock-in model of dense-cored Aβ deposits resulting from accumulation of protofibrillar-favoring Aβ42, we observed that crossing in human APOE reduced amyloid burden. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common kind of dementia worldwide, is characterized by elevated levels of the amyloid-β (Aβ) peptide and hyperphosphorylated tau protein in the neurons. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The ApoE-ε4 gene is a well-established genetic risk factor for neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis, which are characterized by axonal demyelination in the central nervous system. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition and Alzheimer's Disease Risk: A Mendelian Randomisation Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Aging cell 2025-10-13

While preclinical studies suggest that Phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) inhibition may reduce cognitive impairment, findings from observational studies on whether PDE5 inhibitors reduce Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk have been inconsistent. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, affect an increasing number of people in aging societies, dramatically reducing the quality of life of those affected. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) is a chronic, multifactorial neurodegenerative disease affecting a large proportion of the elderly population with detrimental psychological and socioeconomic impacts. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Growing genetic and pathological evidence has identified microglial dysfunction as a key contributor to the pathogenesis and progression of various neurological disorders, positioning microglia replacement as a promising therapeutic strategy. 1 key finding →

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