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.

An 8-plex version of an isobaric reagent for the quantitation of proteins using shotgun methods is presented. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

We provide the first evidence for the capability of a high-resolution positron emission tomographic (PET) imaging system in quantitatively mapping amyloid accumulation in living amyloid precursor protein transgenic (Tg) mice. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Caregivers and neurologists considered incremental clinical benefit over SOC and safety to be highly desirable qualities for a new drug that could clear amyloid plaques and delay clinical progression and indicated a willingness to accept incremental ARIA-E to achieve additional clinical benefits. 2 key findings →

Participants: 137 Evidence: low

CAARS has the potential to predict CAA severity; however, its clinical utility should be evaluated in follow-up studies. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Use of cholinesterase inhibitors is associated with increased rates of syncope, bradycardia, pacemaker insertion, and hip fracture in older adults with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

After taking into consideration a possible protopathic bias in the 2 years preceding the AD diagnosis date, benzodiazepine use was not associated with an increased risk of developing AD. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

In the United States, estimates indicate there are between 250,000 and 400,000 individuals with Down syndrome (DS), and nearly all will develop Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology starting in their 30s. With the current lifespan being 55 to 60 years, approximately 70% will develop dementia, and if their life expectancy continues to increase, the number of individuals developing AD will concomitantly increase. 4 key findings →

Participants: 400,000 Evidence: low

Plasma phosphorylated-tau (p-tau) biomarkers show high performance as first-in-line tests in the evaluation of patients with cognitive symptoms and have also found utility in clinical trials for anti-amyloid drug therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Participants: 317 Evidence: low

Overall, 304 patients receiving cholinesterase inhibitors/memantine also received anticholinergics. 5 key findings →

Participants: 304 Evidence: low

Multicrossover Randomized Controlled Trial Designs in Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2018-08-29

Conventional parallel group randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are too large, long, expensive and insensitive to clinical change to meet the urgent need for an effective treatment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Lifetime cost-effectiveness of lecanemab for early Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Frontiers in public health 2026-01-30

The incremental cost of the lecanemab group compared to the aducanumab group was $30,018.97, with an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 0.25, resulting in an ICER of $121,678.49 per QALY gained. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Crenezumab is a humanized anti-amyloid-beta (Aβ) monoclonal IgG4 antibody in development for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 500 Evidence: high

RVT-101 is a 5-hydroxytryptamine 6 (5-HT6) receptor antagonist for the treatment of dementia with a number of favorable properties including once daily dosing, lack of food effect, and low potential for drug interactions. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 684 Evidence: high

The efficacy of the ginkgo biloba special extract EGb 761 in outpatients with presenile and senile primary degenerative dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) and multi-infarct dementia (MID) according to DSM-III-R was investigated in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center study. 2 key findings →

Participants: 216 Evidence: high

Hepatotoxic Effects of Tacrine Administration in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. JAMA 1994-04-06

Among the 2446 patients who received tacrine in clinical trials, ALT levels greater than the upper limit of normal (ULN) occurred on at least one occasion in 1203 patients (49%), ALT levels greater than three times the ULN occurred in 621 patients (25%), and ALT levels greater than 20 times the ULN occurred in 40 patients (2%). 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 2,446 Evidence: low

Apolipoprotein E (apoE) is critical in the modulation of cholesterol and phospholipid transport between cells of different types. 3 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: low

The cognitive functions of the patients in the CMG and WMG were improved after treatment. 2 key findings →

Participants: 131 Evidence: low

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