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.

After 12 months, no statistically significant difference was observed between MLI+EGCG and MLI+placebo in the PACC-exe (adjusted mean difference [AMD]: 0.12; 95%CI: -0.01, 0.24; p=0.061). 4 key findings →

Participants: 129 Evidence: high

Our pilot studies (National Institutes of Health [NIH] stage 1A) have shown that MHB is feasible, acceptable, and associated with improvement in lifestyle behavior and cognitive outcomes. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 225 Evidence: high

Online education involving a celebrity may be an effective strategy for educating college students about AD risk reduction strategies. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 721 Evidence: high

There is an urgent need to identify lifestyle activities that reduce functional decline and dementia associated with population aging. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

As galantamine slowed the decline of functional ability as well as cognition, its effects are likely to be clinically relevant. 1 key finding →

Participants: 653 Evidence: high

Decreases in depression scores at 13 weeks did not differ between 111 controls and 107 participants allocated to receive sertraline (mean difference 1·17, 95% CI -0·23 to 2·58; p=0·10) or mirtazapine (0·01, -1·37 to 1·38; p=0·99), or between participants in the mirtazapine and sertraline groups (1·16, -0·25 to 2·57; p=0·11); these findings persisted to 39 weeks. 3 key findings →

Participants: 107 Evidence: low

This 3-year randomized clinical trial tested the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary psychoeducational family group intervention in decreasing the caregivers' perceptions of the frequency and severity of behavioral problems in persons with dementia and their reactions to those problems, and in decreasing caregiver burden and depression. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

The ADL benefits in AD patients treated with donepezil were associated with less caregiving time and lower levels of caregiver stress. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

PARO may have some effect on motor activity of older people with dementia in long-term care, but not on sleep patterns. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Twelve months' treatment with doxycycline or rifampin, alone or in combination, has no beneficial effects on cognition or function in AD. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 305 Evidence: high

A Phase II study targeting amyloid-beta with 3APS in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2006-11-02

As a potential disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer disease (AD), 3-amino-1-propanesulfonic acid (3APS) is a compound that binds to amyloid beta (Abeta), a toxic protein known to aggregate, leading to amyloid plaque deposition in the brain. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 58 Evidence: high

Two phase 3 studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of rosiglitazone (RSG), a type 2 diabetes treatment, in an extended release (RSG XR) form as adjunctive therapy to ongoing acetylcholine esterase inhibitor (AChEI) treatment in AD (REFLECT-2, adjunctive to donepezil; REFLECT-3, to any AChEI). 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,496 Evidence: high

A four month, parallel group, placebo controlled trial undertaken in three centres in Tehran, Iran. 2 key findings →

Participants: 42 Evidence: low

Efficacy of flupirtine on cognitive function in patients with CJD: A double-blind study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2004-03-01

In cell culture experiments, flupirtine maleate (FLU), a triaminopyridine compound, was able to protect neuronal cells from apoptotic cell death induced by prion protein fragments and beta-amyloid peptides. 4 key findings →

Participants: 13 Evidence: high

Although cholinesterase inhibitors have produced statistically significant treatment effects, their clinical meaningfulness in Alzheimer's disease is disputed. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 159 Evidence: high

The aim of this multicenter randomized controlled trial was to determine whether the incidence of dislocation one year after total hip arthroplasty is significantly lower in association with the use of a 36-mm femoral head articulation as compared with a 28-mm articulation. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

An AI-Powered Lifestyle Intervention vs Human Coaching in the Diabetes Prevention Program

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA 2025-10-27

A total of 368 participants were included (median [IQR] age, 58 [50-65] years; 71% were female, 27% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 61% were White; median [IQR] BMI, 32.3 [28.5-37.1]). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 368 Evidence: high

In particular, systemic inflammation, vascular inflammation, and altered endothelial function may play roles in domain-specific cognitive decline of nondemented individuals. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,159 Evidence: low

Cognitive training for persons with mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. International psychogeriatrics 2007-10-25

Recent randomized control trials and meta-analyses of experimental studies indicate positive effects of non-pharmacological cognitive training on the cognitive function of healthy older adults. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The recent relevant evidence of the effects of the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) and lifestyle on health (2015 and first months of 2016). 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Efficacy Study participants (n = 1082, 40 clusters) were 75.1 ± 6.3 years old, 68.7% women, and 64.7% prefrail/frail; analytic clusters: 19 intervention (410/549 completed) vs. 21 control (375/533 completed). 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,082 Evidence: high

Home-based CCT Adaptive WM training appears more effective than Non-Adaptive training in older adults from different cultural backgrounds. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Six inclusion criteria were identified for symptomatic therapy and neuroprotective trials: (1) diagnosis of RBD needs to satisfy the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, second edition, (ICSD-2) criteria; (2) minimum frequency of RBD episodes should preferably be ⩾2 times weekly to allow for assessment of change; (3) if the PD-RBD target population is included, it should be in the early stages of PD defined as Hoehn and Yahr stages 1-3 in Off (untreated); (4) iRBD patients with soft neurologic dysfunction and with operational criteria established by the consensus of study investigators; (5) patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI); and (6) optimally treated comorbid OSA. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

From across this tag

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.

↑ 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 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed