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 2,101–2,125 of 3,821 studies published 2025 (page 85 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.

On 22 May 2025, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) announced that the anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody donanemab (Eli Lilly, Kisunla) was approved in Australia for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (MABs) have introduced a new era of Alzheimer's disease (AD) therapeutics with disease-targeted drugs. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The tale of donanemab: God is in the details

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2025-09-03

Alzheimer's disease is a major cause of dementia, that affects approximately 7-8% of people aged 65 years and older (according to WHO & Alzheimer's Disease International) and thus is a major concern in public health world-wide. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The introduction of anti-amyloid antibodies has ushered in a new era in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), coinciding with the revision of its diagnostic criteria, which now focus on the biological definition of AD, with amyloid beta at its core. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

CAA-ri gains increasing interest as a spontaneous human model of iatrogenic edematous amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA-E) in the context of amyloid-modifying therapies. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD), referred to as a type of dementia, is a progressive neurodegenerative disease with cognitive decline and key features comprising extracellular amyloid-β(Aβ) and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Altered Clearance and Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Neuroimaging clinics of North America 2025-02-19

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) are parenchymal edema/effusion and hemorrhage that occur as side effects of immunotherapies targeting beta-amyloid for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains one of the most pressing neurodegenerative disorders worldwide, with increasing prevalence and limited disease-modifying treatments. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Towards pharmacological prevention of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2025-11-03

Prevention of Alzheimer disease (AD) is a medical challenge owing to its complex pathogenesis, which involves amyloid-β (Aβ) and tau aggregation, neuroinflammation and progressive neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Understanding Tau pathology: Insights from animal models

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Zoological research 2025-09-18

Tauopathies represent a class of neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), including Alzheimer's disease (AD), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), Pick's disease (PiD), and corticobasal degeneration (CBD), defined by intracellular accumulation of misfolded and hyperphosphorylated tau protein. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Tirzepatide: a novel therapeutic approach for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Metabolic brain disease 2025-06-11

Tirzepatide (TRZ) is a dual agonist of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) receptors that were recently approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (GRA) belong to a class of compounds that reduce blood glucose and energy intake by simulating actions of endogenous incretin hormone GLP-1 after it is released by the gut following food consumption. 5 key findings →

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