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.

Nearly a dozen monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed against beta-amyloid (Aβ) have been developed for the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD), and most of these mAbs are undergoing clinical trials. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a complex syndrome for which there is no disease-modifying treatment on the market. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Anti-Amyloid Monoclonal Antibodies in Early Alzheimer Disease: Lecanemab and Donanemab

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology International 2026-09-11

Pivotal trials demonstrated statistically significant but modest average slowing of decline: Clarity AD showed a 0.45-point between-group difference in CDR-SB worsening at 18 months, and TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 showed a 3.25-point iADRS difference in the low/medium-tau population at 76 weeks. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Development and Validation of a 18 F-Flortaucipir PET Visual Stratification Method

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2025-03-13

The median PPA and NPA were 83.4% and 88.9%, respectively, with lower bounds of 2-sided 95% CIs being 50% or greater for all readers. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 140 Evidence: low

Recent advances in neuroimaging of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-09-01

This review covers recent advances (2023-2024) in neuroimaging research into the pathophysiology, progression, and treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Pathological mechanisms and treatment progression of Alzheimer’s disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. European journal of medical research 2025-07-14

Alzheimer's disease (AD) represents the most prevalent neurodegenerative disorder and leading cause of dementia worldwide, with its incidence rising dramatically in aging populations. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The mean age of the participants was 68 ± 9 years and 39% were female. 5 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 759 Evidence: low

Small vessel disease encompasses lacunar stroke, white matter hyperintensities, lacunes and microbleeds. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Cognitive and depressive disorders are common in elderly Chinese and are becoming an increasingly important public health problem, partly because of the rapid aging of the population. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Data synthesis Eszopiclone, zolpidem, and suvorexant improved short-term global and sleep outcomes compared with placebo, although absolute effect sizes were small (low- to moderate-strength evidence). 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

We aimed to explore diagnoses associated with antipsychotic use, treatment patterns and characteristics of users without diagnoses relevant to antipsychotic treatment. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

These findings suggest that long-term treatment with paroxetine is associated with improvement of verbal declarative memory deficits and an increase in hippocampal volume in PTSD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 28 Evidence: low

Nonclinical data indicate that ACU193 can reduce the toxic effects of amyloid β oligomers. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

Alzheimer's Disease: Key Insights from Two Decades of Clinical Trial Failures

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2022-01-01

Given the acknowledged lack of success in Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug development over the past two decades, the objective of this review was to derive key insights from the myriad failures to inform future drug development. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

New landscape of the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2025-09-22

Alzheimer's disease involves a drastic departure from the cognitive, functional, and behavioural trajectory of normal ageing, and is both a dreaded and highly prevalent cause of disability to individuals, and a leading source of health and social care expenditure for society. 5 key findings →

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