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 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

ARIA-E is rare in cognitively unimpaired Aβ+ and Aβ- populations prior to anti-amyloid drug intervention. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,250 Evidence: moderate

Genetic variation in sulfonylurea targets was associated with a lower risk of AD, and future studies are warranted to clarify the underlying mechanistic pathways between sulfonylureas and AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 326,885 Evidence: low

Pharmacologic treatments for Alzheimer's disease include the cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The efficacy of a centrally active cholinesterase inhibitor, rivastigmine tartrate (ENA 713; Exelon, in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease was evaluated in a 26-week open-label extension of a 26-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. 1 key finding →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: low

Memantine: a review of its use in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Drugs 2006-01-01

Memantine (Ebixa, Axura, Namenda, Akatinol) is a moderate-affinity, uncompetitive, voltage-dependent, NMDA-receptor antagonist with fast on/off kinetics that inhibits excessive calcium influx induced by chronic overstimulation of the NMDA receptor. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Meta-analysis of modifiable risk factors for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2015-08-20

Effective interventions in diet, medications, biochemical exposures, psychological condition, pre-existing disease and lifestyle may decrease new incidence of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

We reviewed epidemiological and experimental studies of female gonadal hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on cognitive function in post-menopausal women and carried out meta-analyses. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The Use of Cholinesterase Inhibitors Across All Stages of Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Drugs & aging 2015-07-01

Current pharmacological therapy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) includes the cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine and the N-methyl D-aspartate receptor antagonist memantine. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

For the cohort of patients that remained on therapy > or =60 days, the mean time to treatment discontinuation was 331 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 307-355) for rivastigmine patients (n = 392) versus 337 days (95% CI, 322-352) for donepezil patients (n = 1288). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 392 Evidence: moderate

This study investigated the association of statin use with sepsis risk in patients with dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 308 Evidence: moderate

Donanemab treatment significantly slowed clinical progression at 76w and had a safety profile consistent with earlier studies. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,182 Evidence: high

Donanemab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the insoluble form of β-amyloid found in plaques, significantly slows cognitive and functional decline of AD in participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild AD-related dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: phase-3-trial Evidence: moderate

Statin therapy and risk of dementia in the elderly: a community-based prospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2004-11-01

Employing time-dependent proportional hazards modeling, the authors found no significant association between statin use and incident dementia or probable AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 312 Evidence: moderate

This study shows significant therapeutic effects of trazodone 50 mg in community-dwelling AD patients with SD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: high

Apathy is a common behavioral symptom of Alzheimer's disease (AD), being present in up to 70% of patients. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

From across this tag

9 of the 3,106 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 9. The same 9 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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