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.

There is an urgent need for greater consideration of the ethical and legal implications that remote technological monitoring might have upon workforce morale, recruitment and retention. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Peripheral benzodiazepine receptor (PBR) in the brain of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients has been discussed in relation to the role of gliosis in AD. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Monoclonal antibodies for treatment Alzheimer`s disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Reports of Vinnytsia National Medical University 2025-12-01

Annotation. Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia in older adults, characterized by the accumulation of pathological proteins – beta-amyloid (Aβ) and hyperphosphorylated tau protein – resulting in neurodegeneration and cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

With the increased use of technological supports in residential care homes, there is growing interest in the use of real-time location systems (RTLS) to enhance safety and streamline care. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This study will provide evidences to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SMYZD in combination with GBEs in treatment of VaD, as well as the adjuvant role of SMYZD in combination. 5 key findings →

Participants: 196 Evidence: high

The advent of anti-amyloid therapies (AATs) for Alzheimer disease (AD) has elevated the importance of MRI surveillance for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) such as microhemorrhages and siderosis (ARIA-H) and edema (ARIA-E). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Amyloid-targeted monoclonal antibody therapies have introduced a new era in the treatment of early Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Deprescribing for People with Dementia: A Roadmap

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Drugs & Aging 2025-08-26

People with dementia (PWD) are frequently exposed to polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use, in which the risks of medication use outweigh the benefits or the medication is not aligned with treatment goals. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) is characterized neuropathologically by synaptic disruption, neuronal loss, and deposition of amyloid β (Aβ) protein in brain structures that are critical for memory and cognition. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The ASURE trial design is discussed, with a particular focus on fluid biomarkers, EEG, and CFC as endpoints. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

All recently approved monoclonal antibodies (eg, aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab) for Alzheimer disease (AD) were shown to increase the risks of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) in randomized clinical trials, which can include brain swelling or hemorrhage. 4 key findings →

Participants: 240 Evidence: high

Although β-site APP-cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) and secretase inhibitors did not achieve success in clinical trials because of mechanism-based toxicity and cognitive impairment, new monoclonal antibodies such as lecanemab and donanemab have shown high amyloid plaque clearance and reduced cognitive deterioration. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In 4 of 5 patients treated with lecanemab or donanemab and who had moderate or severe ARIA-E, Aβ PET signal decreased significantly more in regions that had been involved with ARIA-E. Greater regional Aβ PET signal reduction in areas involved by ARIA-E may reflect enhanced local Aβ clearance, reduced tracer binding site availability, impaired glymphatic flow from immune complex deposition, or other mechanisms. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study underscores the importance of vigilant monitoring for ARIA and other neurologic and psychiatric AEs associated with lecanemab in real-world clinical settings. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,307,937 Evidence: low

Lecanemab, an amyloid-targeting monoclonal antibody, was recently approved for early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease in South Korea. 5 key findings →

Participants: 112 Evidence: low

Atypical antipsychotics are associated with incident diabetes in older adults without schizophrenia or bipolar disorder QUESTION Question: Is atypical antipsychotic use associated with incident diabetes or hyperlipidaemia in older people without schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? 1 key finding →

Participants: 75 Evidence: low

Lecanemab reduced clinical decline by roughly 27% over placebo, with ARIA-E in 12.6% of treated patients;donanemab slowed decline by about 35%, with ARIA-E near 24%. 4 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

The construction sector is among the most dangerous industries, recognized for its significant rate of accidents with even more serious consequences, especially in developing countries. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Artificial intelligence approach to optimise safety for hospitalised patients with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. BMJ Open Quality 2025-09-01

We used 1387 safety event reports for model development, 989 (71.3%) reports related to situational factors and 119 (8.6%) reports related to active failures. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Aducanumab-Related Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities: Paean or Lament?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Clinical nuclear medicine 2022-04-22

We believe that the amyloid-PET scans, perceived as showing decreasing amyloid deposits, are an expression of increased cerebral cell death due to aducanumab treatment, so that with time one should instead expect a worsening and not an improvement in the treated patients' condition. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

↑ 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.

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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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