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.

The role of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative Genetics Core is to facilitate the investigation of genetic influences on disease onset and trajectory as reflected in structural, functional, and molecular imaging changes; fluid biomarkers; and cognitive status. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Occupational exposure to pesticides increases the risk of incident AD: the Cache County study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2010-05-01

Commonly used organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides inhibit acetylcholinesterase at synapses in the somatic, autonomic, and central nervous systems and may therefore have lasting effects on the nervous system. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Forty-eight patients were randomized to treatment with either topiramate or risperidone, and 41 patients (21 of 25 in topiramate group and 20 of 23 in risperidone group) completed the trial. 4 key findings →

Participants: 41 Evidence: high

Frontal lobe white matter hyperintensities and neurofibrillary pathology in the oldest old

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2010-11-03

Our study showed an association between neurofibrillary pathology and frontal PVWMH and DWMH (rather than parietal), as a surrogate of small vessel disease, particularly in very old community-dwelling individuals. 5 key findings →

Participants: 132 Evidence: moderate

Frailty is a risk for postoperative complications and an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality, institutional discharge, and reduced midterm survival. 1 key finding →

Participants: 3,826 Evidence: low

Change in plasma Aß peptides and onset of dementia in adults with Down syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2010-11-01

Among adults with DS, decreasing levels of plasma Aβ42, a decline in the Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio, or increasing levels of Aβ40 may be sensitive indicators of conversion to AD, possibly reflecting compartmentalization of Aβ peptides in the brain. 3 key findings →

Participants: 225 Evidence: moderate

Mutations in the gene encoding TDP-43-the major protein component of neuronal aggregates characteristic of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) with ubiquitin-positive inclusion bodies-have been linked to familial forms of both disorders. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) beginning in October 2004, is a 6-year research project that studies changes of cognition, function, brain structure and function, and biomarkers in elderly controls, subjects with mild cognitive impairment, and subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

These plasma ceramides may be early indicators of AD progression. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 25 Evidence: low

Obesity is linked with lower brain volume in 700 AD and MCI patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2010-06-08

Obesity is associated with lower brain volumes in cognitively normal elderly subjects, but no study has yet investigated the effects of obesity on brain structure in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 399 Evidence: low

About hundred years ago, Oskar Fischer proposed that the senile plaques are the consequence of the deposition of a foreign substance that could induce an inflammatory response leading to an abnormal neuritic response of the surrounding neurons. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The text describes cerebral small vessel disease as a group of pathological processes affecting the brain's small vessels, with age-related and hypertension-related forms and cerebral amyloid angiopathy being most common. 3 key findings →

No statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome measures (MMSE and ADAS-Cog) was observed with drug therapy at 36 weeks, at which point all groups had lost, on average, 1 point on the MMSE and gained 2-3 points on the ADAS-Cog scale compared with baseline. 5 key findings →

Participants: 938 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 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