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.

Nicotine for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2000-01-01

Nicotine is a cholinergic agonist that acts, not only post-synaptically, but also releases pre-synaptic acetylcholine, and in animal models has been shown to reverse spatial memory decline in rats with lesion in the medial septal nucleus and to show recovery on memory in aged monkeys. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Measurement of HL plasma levels may have potential usefulness as an adjunct in monitoring treatment response to oral HL in AD patients with psychosis or disruptive behavior. 5 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: high

In 2012, the national prevalence of antipsychotic drug use was 20.7% for elderly patients with dementia, with a national incidence of 3.9%. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 34,536 Evidence: low

A plasma protein signature for cerebral amyloid angiopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Acta Neuropathologica 2026-05-20

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is a cerebrovascular disorder characterized by the deposition of amyloid-β (Aβ) in the walls of leptomeningeal and cortical blood vessels that increases risk of intracerebral hemorrhages and progressive cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Participants: 251 Evidence: moderate

Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease 2023-03-22

Lecanemab (Leqembi®) is approved in the United States for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) to be initiated in early AD (mild cognitive impairment [MCI] due to AD or mild AD dementia) with confirmed brain amyloid pathology.

SiD represents a new resource for promoting safety among people with dementia, and high acceptability was achieved in a pilot trial. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 203 Evidence: high

Second-generation anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies are emerging as a viable therapeutic option for individuals with prodromal and mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Review of Safety and Efficacy of Sleep Medicines in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Clinical therapeutics 2016-10-15

Although non-BzRAs have improved safety profiles compared with benzodiazepines, their side effects include dementia, serious injury, and fractures, which should limit their use. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

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

Herbal medicines demonstrate great potential to prevent cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: low

ARIA-H represents a spectrum of MRI findings due to haemosiderin deposition that appears to be related to impaired vascular integrity. 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 262 Evidence: low

During lecanemab treatment for AD, it is essential to fully understand the mechanisms, imaging characteristics, and management strategies of ARIA. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

memantine, cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI), antipsychotic use] estimated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% CIs for resident, facility, and HRR characteristics. 5 key findings →

Participants: 9,735 Evidence: low

Odds ratios for death, dementia, and delirium using anticholinergic-polypharmacy pseudoscales (median = 1.09-1.10) were greater than those of general-polypharmacy pseudoscales (1.05-1.06). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This was a retrospective analysis using nationally representative UK general practice population between 1998 and 2018, from electronic health records (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD, GOLD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,219,732 Evidence: low

Amyloid (senile) plaques, one of the two pathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer disease (AD), are associated with dystrophic neurites and glial responses, both astrocytic and microglial. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities: An Update

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. AJR. American journal of roentgenology 2022-11-02

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) is a term introduced in 2010 to encompass a spectrum of MRI findings observed in patients receiving investigational anti-amyloid beta (Aβ) immunotherapies for Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

A comprehensive outcome monitoring system to monitor the quality and safety of care and variation for HCP recipients was developed. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 68 Evidence: low

Of 43 individuals enrolled, 14 were women (33%); age (mean ± SD) was 73 ± 8.5 years. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 43 Evidence: high

From across this tag

10 of the 470 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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