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.

Cognitive rehabilitation (CR) is a promising treatment approach for older adults with dementia because it aims at supporting the management of day-to-day problems. 2 key findings →

Participants: 201 Evidence: high

Effective counseling and support interventions can reduce symptoms of depression in caregivers when patients are taking donepezil. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

This study questions the effect of statins on the processing of amyloid precursor protein in humans. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Rivastigmine administration during open-label extension therapy benefited patients who had progressed slowly and those who had progressed rapidly during initial double-blind placebo treatment. 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 187 Evidence: high

Feasibility was demonstrated with regard to recruitment, attrition, and treatment characteristics. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Higher baseline PP was significantly associated with increased Aβ (β = 0.078; p = 0.001), inferior temporal tau (β = 0.110; p = 0.032), and meta-temporal tau deposition (β = 0.116; p = 0.022). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,690 Evidence: high

Based on analysis of prospective and nonprospective studies, NSAID exposure was associated with decreased risk of Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Risk factors for non-motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2018-04-23

Non-motor symptoms (NMS) of Parkinson's disease can be predominant as the disease advances, thereby constituting a major source of disease burden for patients and caregivers. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Brief instruments to screen for cognitive impairment can adequately detect dementia, but there is no empirical evidence that screening improves decision making. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Donepezil has been shown to be well tolerated and to improve cognition and global function in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

A systematic literature review and meta-analyses (where appropriate) were performed and the GRADE approach was used to update the previous American Academy of Sleep Medicine Practice Parameters on the treatment of intrinsic circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

A long-term TNP in ChEIs-treated MCI subjects induces additional cognitive and mood benefits. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 59 Evidence: high

Despite the increasing approval of antiamyloid antibodies for Alzheimer disease (AD), their clinical relevance and risk-benefit profile remain uncertain. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 21,236 Evidence: high

This study sought to replicate and build upon a previously published case series report describing improved cognitive function in five patients with mild-to-moderate dementia after 12 weeks of transcranial and intranasal near-infrared (NIR) PBM therapy. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Barriers and Consequences of Prior Authorization for Neurologic Medications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-12-08

A total of 364 studies were identified using our search strategy on Ovid, 278 records were screened, and 20 studies were included in this review. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 364 Evidence: high

A total of 62 RCTs comprising 200,068 participants were included. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 200,068 Evidence: high

We determined the demographics and social drivers of health associated with utilization and initial adherence of these medications. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,198,362 Evidence: low

MRI as a biomarker of disease progression in a therapeutic trial of milameline for AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2003-01-01

The consistency of MRI measurements obtained across sites, and the consistency between the multisite milameline data and that obtained in prior single-site studies, demonstrate the technical feasibility of using structural MRI measures as a surrogate endpoint of disease progression in therapeutic trials. 1 key finding →

Participants: 362 Evidence: high

Previous animal models and structural imaging investigations have linked hippocampal neuroplasticity to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) response, but the relationship between changes in hippocampal volume and temporal coherence in the context of ECT response is unknown. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 19 Evidence: moderate

The results suggest that longitudinal structural trajectories may differ in major depressive disorder patients according to their clinical response to treatment. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate

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