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.

Among 45,651 patients, 311 delirium events occurred among continuous users and 84 among early discontinuers, corresponding to incidence rates of 66 and 112 events per 10,000 person-years, respectively. 5 key findings →

Participants: 45,651 Evidence: low

Choline alfoscerate, a cholinergic precursor with limited evidence of efficacy in dementia management, has been used for various cognitive impairments in Korea. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Treatment options for dementia mainly comprise of symptomatic treatment, as no disease-modifying therapy currently exists that directly reduces the pathology. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Targeting Amyloid Pathology in Early Alzheimer's: The Promise of Donanemab-Azbt

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) 2025-02-08

Key results included a 35% slowing of decline on the Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) and a 36% slowing on the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

Overall, the study with the same protocol is going as expected with no serious AE or any major protocol deviation. 2 key findings →

Participants: 150 Evidence: high

This study will provide evidences to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SMYZD in combination with GBEs in treatment of VaD, as well as the adjuvant role of SMYZD in combination. 5 key findings →

Participants: 196 Evidence: high

The current drug treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) is only partially and temporary effective. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

As the average ages of North Americans and Europeans continue to rise; similarly the incidence of "old age" associated illnesses likewise increases. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A 78-year-old man with moderate Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia was treated with nasal-foralumab, a fully human anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody, as part of a Food and Drug Administration expanded-access-program, based on previously demonstrated efficacy of anti-CD3 antibody in animal models. 18 F-PBR06-PET, utilizing a second-generation 18-kDa-translocator-protein ligand targeting microglia, showed diffuse reduction of radiotracer uptake throughout the brain, following 3 months of nasal-foralumab compared with baseline. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A next-generation HDAC6 inhibitor for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Brain 2025-10-07

We present the pharmacological properties of EKZ-438, which demonstrate high selectivity for HDAC6 (>8500-fold selectivity for HDAC6 versus all other HDAC6 paralogues), low nanomolar potency (12 nM) for HDAC6, and importantly, CNS-penetrance (unbound brain-to-plasma partition coefficient [Kp,uu,brain] ≥ 0.55) and high oral bioavailability (fraction of dose absorbed [F%] = 70). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia among the elderly. 2 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

Our data suggest that FXN ameliorates AD pathology, by simultaneously targeting two key pathological features: Aβ deposits and neuroinflammation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Plant iridoids such as catalpol and its 10-O-trans-p-coumaroyl derivative, geniposide, harpagoside, and loganin, and seco-iridoids, oleuropein and its aglycone and oleocanthal have been found to exhibit significant neuroprotective effect and the property of slowing down the process of neurogedeneration in AD and PD. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Antidepressants have modest efficacy in late-life depression (LLD), perhaps because various neurobiologic processes compromise frontolimbic networks required for antidepressant response. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by dementia, memory impairment, cognitive dysfunction, and speech impairment. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Current therapeutic approaches for Alzheimer and Parkinson disease (AD and PD, respectively) are merely symptomatic, intended for the treatment of symptoms, but offer only partial benefit, without any disease-modifying activity. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 795 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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