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.

The ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL) function is a multifaceted construct that reflects functionality in different daily life situations. 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

In patients treated up to 36 months, amyloid plaque levels continued to decrease in a dose- and time-dependent manner, with levels in the 10 mg/kg fixed-dose group reaching and remaining below a quantitative cut-point discriminating a positive/negative scan. 1 Reduced amyloid plaque levels were also observed in patients switched from placebo to aducanumab during the LTE. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

BBBO was achieved in 5 out of 6 subjects with an average volume of 983 ± 626 mm 3 following FUS at the right frontal lobe both in white and gray matter regions. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Overall, 392 patients were enrolled in HARMONY; 49 patients with PDD and 27 patients with DLB were included in the open-label safety analysis, of whom 46 met response criteria and were randomized to receive pimavanserin (n = 22) or placebo (n = 24) during the double-blind period. 4 key findings →

Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 76 Evidence: early

The authors performed a 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial of carbamazepine (400 mg/day) with 21 agitated subjects (16 completers) who had been treated unsuccessfully with antipsychotics. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

A substantial proportion of persons with AD who were thought incapable of consenting to lower-risk or higher-risk studies have preserved capacity for appointing a research proxy. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

We examined how an Alzheimer disease (AD) family history assessment as compared to a risk assessment incorporating the absence of a disease-associated susceptibility allele affected risk perception among adult children with a family history of AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: high

Estrogens, episodic memory, and Alzheimer's disease: a critical update

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Seminars in reproductive medicine 2009-04-28

Estrogen-containing hormone therapy initiated during late postmenopause does not improve episodic memory (an important early symptom of Alzheimer's disease), and it increases dementia risk. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: high

Among mild to moderate AD patients, enrolled in an actual clinical trial, these results suggest evidence based guidelines for using the MacCAT-CR understanding subscale to help guide judgments about whether a patient has the capacity to consent. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

Twenty-five of 33 (75.8%) participants in the qigong group and 26 of 33 (78.8%) participants in the control group completed the 1-year exercise programs. 4 key findings →

Participants: 33 Evidence: high

In a double blind randomized crossover trial lasting 6 months selegiline, a selective MAO-B inhibitor, was tested against placebo for activity on verbal memory performances in Alzheimer-type dementia (DAT). 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

As a result of the PLST training, there was a decrease in the behavioural problems of Alzheimer's patients, along with a decrease in the care burden of the caregivers and an increase in their care satisfaction. 2 key findings →

Participants: 29 Evidence: high

Research criteria for subcortical vascular dementia in clinical trials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of neural transmission. Supplementum 2000-01-01

Vascular dementia (VaD) incorporate different vascular mechanisms and changes in the brain, and have different causes and clinical manifestations. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Accurate detection and classification of aspiration is a critical component of videofluoroscopic swallowing evaluation, the most commonly utilized instrumental method for dysphagia diagnosis and treatment. 4 key findings →

Participants: 669 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of neurodegenerative disease associated with dementia in the elderly. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Balancing Burdens and Benefits: Ethical Issues of Off‐Label Prescription Pharmaceutical Use

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. PM&R 2013-10-01

He has even given a threshold outlining when the practice of medicine ends versus when the practice of unethical, non–institutional review board approved research begins. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Real tACS paired with cognitive exercises significantly improved ADAS-Cog scores post-treatment compared to pre-treatment (p-value = 0.019), whereas sham tACS did not. 5 key findings →

Participants: 42 Evidence: high

At baseline, the mean MNA score was 22.5 ± 2.3. 5 key findings →

Participants: 105 Evidence: high

At baseline, 219 participants (18%) had CF. The risk for developing CF at 2 years was higher in the control group (risk ratio [RR], 1.88, p = .003). 5 key findings →

Participants: 401 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