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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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.
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 476–500 of 1,887 studies · tagged Clinical Trials(page 20 of 76)· 28,180 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)
From OpenAlex; 13,658 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.
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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2024-07-01
Participants receiving CDCM showed significantly fewer behavioral and psychological symptoms (adjusted mean difference [AMD] in NPI score, -10.26 [95% CI, -16.95 to -3.58]; P = .003; Cohen d, -0.78 [95% CI, -1.09 to -0.46]), better mental health (AMD in SF-12 Mental Component Summary score, 2.26 [95% CI, 0.31-4.21]; P = .02; Cohen d, 0.26 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.51]), and lower caregiver burden (AMD in BIZA-D score, -0.59 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.37]; P Conclusions and relevance In this secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial, CDCM was associated with improved patient, caregiver, and health system-relevant outcomes over 36 months beyond the intervention period. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-04-25
These results do not support the hypothesis that celecoxib or naproxen prevent Alzheimer dementia, at least within the early years after initiation of treatment. 2 key findings →
Oxidative stress, inflammation, and increased cholesterol levels are all mechanisms that have been associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2021-05-01
Intensive treatment was associated with a small but statistically significant greater decrease in hippocampal volume compared with standard treatment, consistent with the observation that intensive treatment is associated with greater decreases in total brain volume. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2024-05-01
This randomized clinical trial demonstrated the positive effects of rTMS on cognitive and functional performance, and the plastic changes in the hippocampal-cortical network. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2020-05-01
After controlling for the baseline AES-C score, site, and comedication with donepezil or galantamine, the mean change in the AES-C score between the bupropion and placebo groups was not statistically significant (mean change, 2.22; 95% CI, -0.47 to 4.91; P = .11). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Neurology·2023-09-01
In a proportion of patients, dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is associated with Alzheimer disease (AD) copathology, which is linked to accelerated cognitive decline and more extensive cortical atrophy. 5 key findings →
These findings suggest medication-specific educational mailings targeting patients with AD or ADRD and their clinicians are not effective in reducing the use of high-risk medications. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2015-03-01
This study showed that flutemetamol injection labeled with radioactive fluorine 18 was safe and had high sensitivity and specificity in an end-of-life population. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2010-09-01
(18)F-Flutemetamol performs similarly to the (11)C-PIB parent molecule within the same subjects and provides high test-retest replicability and potentially much wider accessibility for clinical and research use. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2010-08-20
No significant differences were noted between the two treatments in patients with PDD (3·6 with memantine vs 3·8 with placebo, -0·1 [-0·6 to 0·3]; p=0·576) or in the total population (3·5 with memantine vs 3·8 with placebo, -0·3 [-0·7 to 0·1]; p=0·120). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·PloS one·2008-06-04
Home based support for caregivers of persons with dementia, which emphasizes the use of locally available, low-cost human resources, is feasible, acceptable and leads to significant improvements in caregiver mental health and burden of caring. 3 key findings →
Recruitment ended in December 2014 with 16,703 Australian and 2,411 U.S. participants, a median age of 74 (range 65-98) years and 56% women. 1 key finding →
As none of the studies exceeded a duration of 6 months, the recommendations given are for the short-term management of the different non-motor symptoms. 5 key findings →
Variants of the gene triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative disorders. 4 key findings →
10 of the 1,875 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
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.