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.

Although monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid provide small benefits on cognitive and functional scales in patients with Alzheimer dementia, these improvements are far below the MCID for each outcome and are accompanied by clinically meaningful harms. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 23,202 Evidence: high

Avagacestat dosed at 25 and 50 mg daily was relatively well tolerated and had low discontinuation rates. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 209 Evidence: high

ABBY: A phase 2 randomized trial of crenezumab in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Neurology 2018-04-25

Although prespecified criteria for testing treatment effects were not met, these data suggest a potential treatment effect in patients with mild AD treated with high-dose crenezumab. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 184 Evidence: high

Quality of the reporting of trials varied. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,353 Evidence: high

In this 10-week, double-blind, fixed-dose study, elderly institutionalized patients with dementia and agitation were randomized (3:3:2) to quetiapine 200mg/day, 100mg/day, or placebo. 2 key findings →

Participants: 117 Evidence: high

Based on integrated review of laboratory, electrocardiogram, adverse events, and MRI, AAB-003 was safe and well tolerated up to 8 mg/kg for up to 91 weeks (FIH and extension trials) in patients with mild to moderate AD. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high

These findings support the short-term efficacy and safety of Lecanemab in early AD and highlight plasma biomarkers as a treatment-responsive biomarker. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of donepezil in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease, and examined the relationships between plasma donepezil concentration, red blood cell acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity and clinical response. 5 key findings →

Participants: 161 Evidence: high

Treatment with ChEIs results in a modest but significant therapeutic effect and modestly but significantly higher rates of adverse events and discontinuation of treatment. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,159 Evidence: high

The TREM2 agonistic antibody AL002 in early Alzheimer's disease: a phase 2 randomized trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Nature Medicine 2026-03-05

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) regulates microglial function and is implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis. 2 key findings →

Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 381 Evidence: null result

In participants with early symptomatic AD, zagotenemab failed to achieve significant slowing of clinical disease progression compared with placebo. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 360 Evidence: high

Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities and β-Amyloid-Targeting Antibodies: A Systematic Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2022-03-01

Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) ε4 genotype was the main risk factor for both ARIA types; ARIA-E incidence was further associated with treatment dose, affecting the 55% of ApoE ε4 carriers in the high-dose aducanumab treatment group. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

There was no difference in the age (mean [SD], 74.17 [7.96] years), sex (12 women [67%]), or baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score (mean [SD], 19.39 [3.24]) between the crossover (n = 9) and open-label groups (n = 9). 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

However, the advisory did not apply to conventional antipsychotic medications; the risk of death with these older agents is not known. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 22,890 Evidence: moderate

Antipsychotic drug use and mortality in older adults with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Annals of internal medicine 2007-06-01

Atypical antipsychotic use is associated with an increased risk for death compared with nonuse among older adults with dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 27,259 Evidence: moderate

Between May 18, 2021, and Sept 8, 2023, 9981 participants were screened, of whom 3808 were randomly assigned; 1855 in evoke (semaglutide, n=928; placebo, n=927) and 1953 in evoke+ (semaglutide, n=976; placebo, n=977). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 928 Evidence: high

Analysis included patients treated with an atypical antipsychotic, compared with placebo Main results Sixteen placebo controlled trials have been completed with atypical antipsychotics although only nine had sufficient data to contribute to a meta-analysis and only five have been published in full in peer reviewed journals. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Lecanemab/Donanemab can improve memory, cognitive function, and daily living abilities in patients with early AD, significantly reduce the composite score of Alzheimer's disease, and inhibit the accumulation of amyloid peptides, thereby alleviating symptoms and improving the condition. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Infusion of bapineuzumab 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg every 13 weeks for up to 3 years was generally well tolerated, with a safety and tolerability profile similar to that in previous studies. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,462 Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease, prevalent in individuals aged 60 and above, constitutes most dementia cases and significantly impairs memory and cognitive functions. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Anti-amyloid Monoclonal Antibodies in Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Cureus 2025-06-04

Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies targeting amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques have gained prominence over the past decade as potential disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD), leading to major regulatory approvals and global debate. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

From across this tag

8 of the 468 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 8. The same 8 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 27,380 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