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 primary outcome of this clinical trial is the change in the Vascular Dementia Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale from baseline to 12 months. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,052 Evidence: high

These results suggest pairing tDCS with cognitive training enhances functional connectivity and working memory performance in older adults, and thus may hold promise as a method for remediating age-related cognitive decline. 3 key findings →

Participants: 28 Evidence: low

PET amyloid levels were consistent with sparse-to-no neuritic amyloid-β plaques in 51% of patients after 2 years of therapy. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 89 Evidence: low

The failure of several Phase II/III clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD) with drugs targeting β-amyloid accumulation in the brain fuelled an increasing interest in alternative treatments against tau pathology, including approaches targeting tau phosphatases/kinases, active and passive immunization, and anti-tau aggregation. 2 key findings →

Participants: 321 Evidence: low

A possible blood plasma biomarker for early-stage Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. PloS one 2022-04-21

We sought to identify a usable biomarker from blood samples to characterize early-stage Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients, in order to facilitate rapid diagnosis, early therapeutic intervention, and monitoring of clinical trials. 1 key finding →

Participants: 25 Evidence: low

Passive Alzheimer's immunotherapy: A promising or uncertain option?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2023-07-05

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s recent accelerated approval of two anti-amyloid antibodies for treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), aducanumab and lecanemab, has caused substantial debate. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

This article describes the protocol for the Systematic Multi-domain Alzheimer's Risk Reduction Trial (SMARRT), a single-blind randomized pilot trial to test a personalized, pragmatic, multi-domain Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk reduction intervention in a US integrated healthcare delivery system. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Average adherence was 41%. Despite this, remote measures demonstrated excellent reliability (ICCs > 0.90 after 10 sessions) and strong construct validity, with tasks loading onto memory, attention, and executive function domains. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

N/A. ENGAGE and EMERGE are Phase 3 clinical trials designed to confirm the clinical efficacy and safety profile of aducanumab in individuals with Early AD. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

In relation to placebo, the last observation in phase 1 showed greater improvement with olanzapine or risperidone on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory total score, risperidone on the Clinical Global Impression of Changes, olanzapine and risperidone on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) hostile suspiciousness factor, and risperidone on the BPRS psychosis factor. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 421 Evidence: low

The data derived from this patient cohort demonstrate the safety and tolerability of sustained NGF release by a second-generation NGF-ECB implant to the basal forebrain, with uneventful surgical implant and removal of NGF-ECB implants in a new dosing cohort of four patients with AD. 2 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: moderate

Lecanemab reduces brain amyloid-β and delays cognitive worsening

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Cell reports. Medicine 2023-03-01

Lecanemab cleared amyloid-β in two-thirds and reduced the rate of cognitive and functional worsening in people with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia due to Alzheimer disease in an 18-month double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled trial reported by van Dyck et al. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

A comparison of a randomized clinical trial of donepezil in AD patients and this observational study indicates that if appropriate methodological and statistical precautions are undertaken, then results from randomized clinical trials can be predictive with AD patients in clinical practice. 5 key findings →

Participants: 91 Evidence: high

Recent trials of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) have reported encouraging results for improving or stabilizing cognition in patients diagnosed with Alzheimer dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 523 Evidence: high

We hypothesize that the experimental group will be more effective in managing caregiver burden and coping strategies and that this will improve the perception of well-being, anxiety, and depression among caregivers. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

As a safe and effective medicine, akatinol memantine, which has a similar effect as donepezil for AD, can remarkably improve the cognition, behavior, and mood of AD patients. 1 key finding →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

This article outlines methodological enhancements to better evaluate treatment approaches in future registration trials and provides an algorithm for improving the treatment of these patients in nursing home and non-nursing home settings. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

This suggests that for many antipsychotic drug users benefits may be marginal and that programs to reduce such drug use among the 250,000 US nursing home residents receiving these drugs should have high priority. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study aims to assess the evolution of cognitive performances over a 5-year follow-up period in community-dwelling older people with negative plasma p-tau181 levels and to determine whether frailty could discriminate between those who experience cognitive decline and those who do not, in the p-tau negative groups. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Nearly a dozen monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed against beta-amyloid (Aβ) have been developed for the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD), and most of these mAbs are undergoing clinical trials. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

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