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.

LSS treatment may improve episodic memory in AD patients and may be regarded as a clinical option to counteract the cognitive decline typical of the disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Phenotypic personality dimensions, primarily neuroticism and extraversion, moderate the relationship between APOE [Latin Small Letter Open E]-4 genotype and cognitive outcomes among older adults. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Effect of an antioxidant drink on homocysteine levels in Alzheimer's patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Journal of the neurological sciences 2010-09-20

The regular ingestion of polyphenols contained in an antioxidant beverage may decrease tHcy plasmatic concentrations in Alzheimer's patients. 1 key finding →

Participants: 100 Evidence: high

The CSDD, and particularly its mood subscale, appears to be more sensitive than the HDRS, it's subscales or the NPI-M, for comparing drug to placebo in treating major depression in AD patients. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

In mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer disease (AD), also known as prodromal AD, there is evidence for a pathologic shortage of uridine, choline, and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]), which are key nutrients needed by the brain. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

This randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the effect of 12 weeks of therapeutic exercise on cognitive function and daily activities in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 57 Evidence: high

This is the first study to test community-based family dementia caregiver intervention in Vietnam. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

This study aimed to examine the therapeutic mechanism of the benefit-finding therapeutic (BFT) intervention that used cognitive reappraisal and alternative thinking to construct positive aspects of caregiving (PAC), in a cluster-randomized controlled trial for Alzheimer caregivers. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Fourteen- and 16-second cut points for the CST are suitable to identify people at higher risk of functional decline among older adults in Mexico and Toledo, Spain. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Data collection began in Ontario and Alberta Canada in June 2015 and is expected to be completed in June 2017. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Ambroxol as a Treatment for Parkinson Disease Dementia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2025-06-30

Mean (SD) β-glucocerebrosidase levels were higher at week 26 (ambroxol, 12.45 [1.97] nmol/h/mg; 91% CI, 11.54-13.36 nmol/h/mg); placebo, 8.50 [1.96] nmol/h/mg; 91% CI, 7.65-9.34 nmol/h/mg; P = .05) in the ambroxol group compared with placebo. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 75 Evidence: high

The S@H study is the first randomized trial of a firearm safety decision aid for ADRD caregivers. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 117 Evidence: high

Once-weekly 5-mg/d donepezil TDS demonstrated minimal skin irritation under conditions of use of 3 consecutive weekly patch applications to the same skin site and minimal sensitization potential. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 198 Evidence: high

Patient treatment with sertraline was not associated with significantly greater reductions in caregiver distress than placebo treatment. 5 key findings →

Participants: 131 Evidence: high

Phase 3 (NIH stage 1B) is a feasibility randomized controlled trial of the intervention versus the Health Education Program control. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high

Long-term use of urate-lowering therapies (ULT) may reduce inflammaging and thus prevent cognitive decline during aging. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 51 Evidence: high

Interventions that have even quite modest effects at the individual level could drastically reduce the future burden of dementia associated with Alzheimer's disease at the population level. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

The trial was performed in 109 healthy subjects and 123 SDAT patients of whom 97 healthy subjects and 104 SDAT patients completed the study. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

To design clinical trials for the frontotemporal lobar degenerations (FTLD), knowledge about measurement of disease progression is needed to estimate power and enable the choice of optimal outcome measures. 2 key findings →

Participants: 107 Evidence: low

This study evaluated efficacy and safety of donepezil hydrochloride (donepezil) at 5 mg/day in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease for 24 weeks in a double-blind, placebo-controlled comparative trial. 4 key findings →

Participants: 228 Evidence: low

Disclosure (N = 194) and non-disclosure (N = 180) groups did not differ on IGT-AD (mean disclosure-non-disclosure difference [MD] at 6 weeks: -1.5, p = 0.14; 9 months: -1.2, p = 0.35; 15 months: -2.0, p = 0.07), IES-R (MD at 6 weeks: 0.00, p = 0.98; 9 months: 0.01, p = 0.84; 15 months: 0.03, p = 0.64), or change in secondary outcomes. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 194 Evidence: high

Among ACHIEVE participants in the top quartile of predicted risk, 3-year cognitive decline in the hearing intervention was 61.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.7%-94.1%) slower than the control. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,692 Evidence: moderate

Of the 62 caregivers approached, 60 enrolled (96.7%), and 54 completed the study (90% retention). 5 key findings →

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