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.

Massive parallel sequencing recently allowed the identification of three genes carrying a higher burden of rare, protein-truncating and missense predicted damaging variants in Alzheimer disease (AD) cases as compared to controls: TREM2, SORL1, and ABCA7. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) framework uses cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of total tau (tTau) as a marker of neurodegeneration and CSF levels of phosphorylated tau 181 (pTau181) as a marker of tau tangles. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 465 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an incurable neurodegenerative disorder accounting for 70%-80% dementia cases worldwide. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 138 Evidence: moderate

Hypersynchronization in mild cognitive impairment: the 'X' model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2019-12-01

Hypersynchronization has been proposed as a synaptic dysfunction biomarker in the Alzheimer's disease continuum, reflecting the alteration of the excitation/inhibition balance. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate

Systemic and central nervous system metabolic alterations in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2019-11-28

The observed metabolic alterations were associated with core pathological processes of AD to investigate their relation with amyloid pathology and tau-related neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 40 Evidence: moderate

Baseline NfL was elevated in symptomatic carriers (median 52 pg/mL [IQR 24-69]) compared with presymptomatic carriers (9 pg/mL [6-13]; p<0·0001) and non-carriers (8 pg/mL [6-11]; p<0·0001), and was higher in converters than in non-converting carriers (19 pg/mL [17-28] vs 8 pg/mL [6-11]; p=0·0007; adjusted for age). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 59 Evidence: moderate

Linking detailed HCAP cognitive assessments to the wealth of available longitudinal HRS data on cognition, health, biomarkers, genetics, health care utilization, informal care, and economic resources and behavior will provide unique and expanded opportunities to study cognitive impairment and dementia in a nationally representative US population-based sample. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,496 Evidence: moderate

Program participants (n = 382 men, n = 701 women; mean [SD] age, 82.10 [7.90] years; age range 54-101 years) were less likely to be admitted to a long-term care facility (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.59-0.61) than those not participating in the dementia care program (n = 759 men, n = 1407 women; mean [SD] age, 82.42 [8.50] years; age range, 34-103 years). 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 382 Evidence: moderate

The Panama Aging Research Initiative Longitudinal Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. MEDICC review 2019

The Panama Aging Research Initiative is a cohort study of 423 adults aged ≥65 years recruited from an outpatient geriatric department of Panama's largest public hospital, the Social Security Fund's Dr Arnulfo Arias Madrid Hospital Complex (Complejo Hospitalario Dr Arnulfo Arias Madrid de la Caja de Seguro Social). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 423 Evidence: moderate

This study investigated the association of statin use with sepsis risk in patients with dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 308 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is pathologically characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques, neurofibrillary tangles and widespread neuronal loss in the brain. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 12 Evidence: moderate

Nutrition is a modifiable factor potentially related to aging. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 661 Evidence: high

Study objectives We investigated the effectiveness of a lighting intervention tailored to maximally affect the circadian system as a nonpharmacological therapy for treating problems with sleep, mood, and behavior in persons with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 46 Evidence: high

The exact etiology of dementia is still unclear, but both genetic and lifestyle factors are thought to be key drivers of this complex disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 6,352 Evidence: low

Diabetes status, poor glycemic control, and longer diabetes duration were associated with worse cognitive outcomes over a median follow-up of 5 years. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,099 Evidence: low

Depression and external locus of control partially mediate racial/ethnic differences in memory trajectories. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 10,173 Evidence: moderate

An individual's brainAGE is the difference between chronological age and age predicted from machine-learning models of brain-imaging data. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 869 Evidence: moderate

Obstructive sleep apnea and longitudinal Alzheimer's disease biomarker changes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Sleep 2019-06-01

Study objectives To determine the effect of self-reported clinical diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) on longitudinal changes in brain amyloid PET and CSF biomarkers (Aβ42, T-tau, and P-tau) in cognitively normal (NL), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease (AD) elderly. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 516 Evidence: moderate

TREM2 (triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2) gene variants were reported to increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and even other neurodegenerative diseases (frontotemporal dementia (FTD), Parkinson's disease (PD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)), but so far, no definite conclusion has been drawn. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 39 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