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.

This multicenter trial showed no benefit of divalproex sodium for treatment for agitation in dementia at a mean dose of 800 mg/day over 6 weeks. 3 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: high

In nursing home residents with AD and psychosis, aripiprazole did not confer specific benefits for the treatment of psychotic symptoms; but psychological and behavioral symptoms, including agitation, anxiety, and depression, were improved with aripiprazole, with a low risk of AEs. 4 key findings →

Participants: 131 Evidence: high

Efficacy analysis included 416 patients. 3 key findings →

Participants: 238 Evidence: high

Considering several covariates together allowed the identification of responders. 2 key findings →

Participants: 186 Evidence: low

There were no differences in measures of effectiveness between initiation of active treatments or placebo (which represented watchful waiting) but the placebo group had significantly lower health care costs. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 421 Evidence: high

Treatment with sertraline in patients with dAD is not associated with greater improvement in cognition at week 24 than treatment with placebo. 2 key findings →

Participants: 67 Evidence: high

This study found no effect of ongoing BDZR use on ADAS-Cog scores in those with mild to moderate AD over 18 months. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 448 Evidence: high

A brief DMA combined with plasma pTau217 identifies a subset of cognitively unimpaired, amyloid-positive older adults at highest risk for cognitive and biomarker progression. 2 key findings →

Participants: 818 Evidence: high

HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders persist in the era of potent antiretroviral therapy: CHARTER Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2010-12-01

The most severe HAND diagnosis (HAD) was rare, but milder forms of impairment remained common, even among those receiving CART who had minimal comorbidities. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 843 Evidence: low

As galantamine slowed the decline of functional ability as well as cognition, its effects are likely to be clinically relevant. 1 key finding →

Participants: 653 Evidence: high

The ADL benefits in AD patients treated with donepezil were associated with less caregiving time and lower levels of caregiver stress. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

With the potential development of new disease-modifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) therapies, simple, widely available screening tests are needed to identify which individuals, who are experiencing symptoms of cognitive or behavioral decline, should be further evaluated for initiation of treatment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Low daytime SBP was independently associated with a greater progression of cognitive decline in older patients with dementia and MCI among those treated with AHDs. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 172 Evidence: moderate

Twelve months' treatment with doxycycline or rifampin, alone or in combination, has no beneficial effects on cognition or function in AD. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 305 Evidence: high

Two phase 3 studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of rosiglitazone (RSG), a type 2 diabetes treatment, in an extended release (RSG XR) form as adjunctive therapy to ongoing acetylcholine esterase inhibitor (AChEI) treatment in AD (REFLECT-2, adjunctive to donepezil; REFLECT-3, to any AChEI). 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,496 Evidence: high

Although cholinesterase inhibitors have produced statistically significant treatment effects, their clinical meaningfulness in Alzheimer's disease is disputed. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 159 Evidence: high

Changes in cognitive functioning following treatment of late-life depression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. The American journal of psychiatry 2000-12-01

Knowledge of the relationship between various clinical characteristics and cognitive functioning is advancing, but little is known about the cognitive response to treatment for geriatric depression. 4 key findings →

Participants: 45 Evidence: low

One million nine hundred twenty-five thousand, five hundred sixty-three individuals were included across the four databases with a median follow-up ranging from 5.6 to 8.4 years. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

There is type 1b evidence for gingko biloba in producing a modest benefit of cognitive function; cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of people with Lewy body disease (particularly neuropsychiatric symptoms); cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in treatment cognitive impairment associated with vascular dementia; and the effect of metal collating agents (although these should not be prescribed until more data on safety and efficacy are available). 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Six inclusion criteria were identified for symptomatic therapy and neuroprotective trials: (1) diagnosis of RBD needs to satisfy the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, second edition, (ICSD-2) criteria; (2) minimum frequency of RBD episodes should preferably be ⩾2 times weekly to allow for assessment of change; (3) if the PD-RBD target population is included, it should be in the early stages of PD defined as Hoehn and Yahr stages 1-3 in Off (untreated); (4) iRBD patients with soft neurologic dysfunction and with operational criteria established by the consensus of study investigators; (5) patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI); and (6) optimally treated comorbid OSA. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of neural predictors of response to the most commonly used, evidence based treatments in clinical practice, namely pharmacological and psychological therapies. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

From across this tag

10 of the 3,071 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