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.

Individuals with AD comprise a substantial number of older adult deaths in the United States, a number expected to rise considerably in coming decades. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 10,802 Evidence: moderate

Our results support an association between the use of ADT in the treatment of prostate cancer and an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease in a general population cohort. 4 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 16,888 Evidence: moderate

Due to valued informal care, costs of care for community-living patients with moderate dementia are significantly higher than for patients with mild dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Among older Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure, there is a higher overall burden of comorbidity and greater prevalence of discordant comorbidity among the oldest old. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 201,130 Evidence: moderate

Dialysis modality is associated with incident dementia in a cohort of older ESRD patients. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 121,623 Evidence: moderate

Dual-eligible older persons are at greater risk for decline in function and cognition after an ICU hospitalization than their more advantaged counterparts. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 641 Evidence: moderate

Deintensification of treatment regimens occurred in less than one-half of potentially overtreated Veterans and was more strongly associated with low HbA1c values and use of medications with high risk for hypoglycemia, rather than other resident characteristics. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,056 Evidence: moderate

Using a Drosophila model of Alzheimer's disease (AD), we systematically evaluated 67 candidate genes based on AD-associated genomic loci (P < 10(-4)) from published human genome-wide association studies (GWAS). 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

A novel multi-tissue RNA diagnostic of healthy ageing relates to cognitive health status

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Genome biology 2015-09-03

One hundred and fifty probe-sets form an accurate classifier of young versus older muscle tissue and this healthy ageing RNA classifier performed consistently in independent cohorts of human muscle, skin and brain tissue (n = 594, AUC = 0.83-0.96) and thus represents a biomarker for biological age. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 594 Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal neuroimaging biomarkers differ across Alzheimer’s disease phenotypes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Brain 2020-04-29

Principal component analysis identified patterns of variation in baseline and longitudinal measures of tau uptake and volume that were significantly different across phenotypes. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 57 Evidence: moderate

Postmenopausal Estrogen and Prevention Bias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Annals of Internal Medicine 1991-09-15

Brief Report15 September 1991Postmenopausal Estrogen and Prevention BiasElizabeth Barrett-Connor, MDElizabeth Barrett-Connor, MDAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-115-6-455 SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ExcerptIn the last decade many investigators reported that postmenopausal women taking estrogen were at reduced risk for cardiovascular disease compared with women not taking estrogen (1). 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Neuropsychological measures predict decline to Alzheimer's dementia from mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neuropsychology 2012-05-21

At 20 months 12.3% of the MCI group progressed to dementia, 62.9% continued to meet MCI criteria, and 24.7% reverted to unimpaired levels of function. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 106 Evidence: moderate

To examine the relationship between smoking and Alzheimer's disease (AD) after controlling for study design, quality, secular trend, and tobacco industry affiliation of the authors, electronic databases were searched; 43 individual studies met the inclusion criteria. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

ACOVE Quality Indicators

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001-10-16

A Systematic ReviewObstructive sleep apnoea, positive airway pressure treatment and postoperative delirium: protocol for a retrospective observational studyEvidence supporting the best clinical management of patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: a systematic guideline review and expert consensusDeprescribiendo para mejorar la salud de las personas o cuando deprescribir puede ser la mejor medicinaThe use of proton pump inhibitors among older adults with intellectual disability: A cross sectional observational studyNeed for Comprehensive Health Care Quality Measures for Older AdultsDevelopment and initial validation of prescribing quality indicators for patients with chronic kidney diseaseOlder patients' prescriptions screening in the community pharmacy: development of the Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP³S) toolA New Computer-Based Tool to Reduce Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions in Hospitalized Geriatric PatientsThe Successful Aging After Elective Surgery Study: Cohort Description and Data Quality ProceduresRoutine deprescribing of chronic medications to combat polypharmacyAnnual Cognitive Assessment for Older Adults: Update for NursesThe impact of pharmaceutical care interventions for medication underuse in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysisAssessing appropriateness of osteoarthritis care using quality indicators: a systematic reviewCurrent Factors of Fragility and Delirium in Vascular SurgeryDrug-related problems identification in general internal medicine: The impact and role of the clinical pharmacist and pharmacologistPrescription of potentially inappropriate drugs for geriatric patients in long-term care: improvement through pharmacist's interventionChanging practice in dementia care in the community: developing and testing evidence-based interventions, from timely diagnosis to end of life (EVIDEM)High Prevalence of Poor Quality Drug Prescribing in Older Individuals: A Nationwide Report From the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA)Delirium in elderly peopleDelphi consensus statement: Quality indicators for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Comprehensive Care UnitsPotentiality of STOPP/START criteria used in primary care to effectively change inappropriate prescribing in elderly patientsToo Much to ManageHip Fracture ManagementAppropriateness of Medication Prescribing Using the STOPP/START Criteria in Veterans Receiving Home-Based Primary CareActualización de la neumonía en el ancianoEstablishi 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Risk of Mortality Among Individual Antipsychotics in Patients With Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. American Journal of Psychiatry 2011-12-30

In covariate-adjusted intent-to-treat analyses, haloperidol was associated with the highest mortality rates (relative risk=1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.38-1.73) followed by risperidone (reference), olanzapine (relative risk=0.99, 95% CI=0.89-1.10), valproic acid and its derivatives (relative risk=0.91, 95% CI=0.78-1.06), and quetiapine (relative risk=0.73, 95% CI=0.67-0.80). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 33,604 Evidence: moderate

Blood-Based Protein Biomarkers for Diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Archives of Neurology 2012-07-17

A biomarker panel was identified that included markers significantly increased (cortisol, pancreatic polypeptide, insulinlike growth factor binding protein 2, β(2) microglobulin, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, carcinoembryonic antigen, matrix metalloprotein 2, CD40, macrophage inflammatory protein 1α, superoxide dismutase, and homocysteine) and decreased (apolipoprotein E, epidermal growth factor receptor, hemoglobin, calcium, zinc, interleukin 17, and albumin) in AD. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 207 Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau181 is elevated in patients with ALS, independently from CSF levels, and is firmly associated with LMN dysfunction. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 39 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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