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 151–175 of 1,887 studies · tagged Clinical Trials(page 7 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.
EQ-5D utility scores averaged 0·03 (95% CI 0·01-0·05; p=0·0002) better with levodopa than with levodopa-sparing therapy; rates of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·61-1·08, p=0·14), admissions to institutions (0·86, 0·63-1·18; p=0·4), and death (0·85, 0·69-1·06, p=0·17) were not significantly different, but the upper CIs precluded any substantial increase with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy. 179 (28%) of 632 patients allocated dopamine agonists and 104 (23%) of 460 patients allocated MAOBI discontinued allocated treatment because of side-effects compared with 11 (2%) of 528 patients allocated levodopa (p<0·0001). 2 key findings →
Our findings indicate that high-speed resistance exercise training approaches are effective in improving cognitive function and physical performance in older adults with cognitive frailty. 3 key findings →
Levels of apathy decreased slightly in both groups (mean decrease in AES-I of .61 points, 95% CI -3.54, 2.33 for TBI and .36 points, 95% CI -3.27, 2.55 for CAS). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100.·GeroScience·2023-11-23
Nicotinamide riboside (NR) increases blood levels of NAD+, a cofactor central to energy metabolism, and improves brain function in some rodent models of neurodegeneration. 2 key findings →
EA intervention could increase the MoCA score and improve the neutral and consistency response of the STROOP test in VCIND patients (P < 0.05). fMRI functional connectivity analysis showed that, after EA, the default mode network (DMN) function of the posterior cingulate gyrus, left middle frontal gyrus, left anterior cingulate gyrus, left and right superior temporal gyrus, right insula, left precentral gyrus and other brain regions were significantly higher than that in the control group. 5 key findings →
EQW affected FCN2 (Cohen's d -0.019), PAI-1 (Cohen's d -0.033), sVCAM-1 (Cohen's d 0.035) and a cytokine-cytokine cluster (Cohen's d 0.037) significantly compared with placebo. 4 key findings →
BackgroundPreclinical and clinical evidence suggest that low-dose cannabinoids could ameliorate Alzheimer's disease (AD) signs and symptoms. 3 key findings →
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a 6-month cycling aerobic exercise intervention on cardiorespiratory fitness and the dose-response relationship in community-dwelling older adults with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100.·BMJ·2018-05-16
A moderate to high intensity aerobic and strength exercise training programme does not slow cognitive impairment in people with mild to moderate dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100.·Neurology·2023-03-27
These findings reveal the potential for anti-Aβ therapies to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy and provide new insight into the adverse impact of ARIA. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2022-08-01
In participants with prodromal to mild AD in this randomized clinical trial, semorinemab did not slow clinical AD progression compared with placebo throughout the 73-week study period but did demonstrate an acceptable and well-tolerated safety profile. 3 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.