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.

We aimed to assess whether continued treatment with antipsychotics in people with AD is associated with an increased risk of mortality. 5 key findings →

Participants: 165 Evidence: high

Future research is warranted to examine the mechanistic basis of treatment differences, and to further assess the efficacy and safety of intranasal insulin. 4 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: high

We randomly assigned patients with a computer-generated sequence in a 4:1 ratio overall to receive AADvac1 or placebo. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high

Community occupational therapy intervention for patients with dementia and their care givers is successful and cost effective, especially in terms of informal care giving. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 135 Evidence: high

Patient and caregiver factors contribute to caregiver burden in persons living with PD. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 175 Evidence: high

Fewer than half of the older adults dispensed donepezil in Ontario would have been eligible to participate in the RCTs that established the efficacy of this drug. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 3,423 Evidence: high

Group 3 showed less decrease in the SIB score at 12 and 24 weeks compared with group 1 (P < 0.05). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 31 Evidence: high

A phase II randomized trial of sodium oligomannate in Alzheimer's dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2020-09-14

Comparing with the placebo group (n = 83, change - 1.45), the ADAS-cog12 score change in the GV-971 600-mg group (n = 76) was - 1.39 (p = 0.89) and the GV-971 900-mg group (n = 83) was - 2.58 (p = 0.30). 5 key findings →

Participants: 83 Evidence: high

We investigated the effect of a multidomain lifestyle intervention on the risk of dementia estimated using the validated CAIDE risk score (post-hoc analysis). 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Individuals with cognitive profiles consistent with probable executive MCI were identified using simple assessments of global cognition, memory and executive functions in a community-dwelling older population. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 161 Evidence: high

Among community-dwelling patients with moderate to severe dementia and their caregivers, dementia palliative care, compared with usual care, did not significantly improve patients' neuropsychiatric symptoms through 24 months. 5 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 201 Evidence: moderate

No clinically important adverse events were associated with treatment. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 432 Evidence: high

One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (n = 4005) examined the direct effect of screening for cognitive impairment on patient outcomes, including potential harms, finding no significant differences in health-related quality of life at 12 months (effect size, 0.009 [95% CI, -0.063 to 0.080]). 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,005 Evidence: high

Older adults with higher triglyceride levels within the normal to high-normal range had a lower dementia risk and slower cognitive decline over time compared with individuals with lower triglyceride levels. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 13,976 Evidence: high

These results show that in addition to APOE ε4 allele count, severity of Aβ neuropathology and comorbid cerebrovascular pathology may be relevant for clinicians prescribing anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies for early AD and developing individualized safety monitoring plans. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 985 Evidence: high

The hippocampus shrinks in late adulthood, leading to impaired memory and increased risk for dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

During a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, dementia was documented in 193 (6.3%) of the 3051 randomized participants in the actively treated group and 217 (7.1%) of the 3054 randomized participants in the placebo group (relative risk reduction, 12% [95% confidence interval, -8% to 28%]; P =.2). 4 key findings →

Participants: 6,105 Evidence: high

The FINGER intervention was beneficial regardless of participants' characteristics and can thus be implemented in a large elderly population at increased risk for dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high

Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control on Probable Dementia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. JAMA 2019-02-01

Among ambulatory adults with hypertension, treating to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg compared with a goal of less than 140 mm Hg did not result in a significant reduction in the risk of probable dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 4,678 Evidence: high

The 780 PWDs (56.3% female; mean [SD] age, 78.1 [9.9] years) and 780 caregivers (70.9% female; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [12.0] years) lived in California (n = 452), Nebraska (n = 284), or Iowa (n = 44). 2 key findings →

Participants: 452 Evidence: high

Because of the significant ramifications of falls, many interventions have been proposed, but few have aimed to prevent falls via an integrated approach targeting both motor and cognitive function. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 154 Evidence: high

The efficacy and safety of donepezil as a treatment for patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) was investigated in a multicenter, double-blind study. 4 key findings →

Participants: 162 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