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.

These data suggest a revision of the original ADAPT hypothesis that NSAIDs reduce AD risk, as follows: NSAIDs have an adverse effect in later stages of AD pathogenesis, whereas asymptomatic individuals treated with conventional NSAIDs such as naproxen experience reduced AD incidence, but only after 2 to 3 years. 5 key findings →

Participants: 54 Evidence: high

Naproxen and celecoxib do not prevent AD in early results from a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Neurology 2007-04-25

These results do not support the hypothesis that celecoxib or naproxen prevent Alzheimer dementia, at least within the early years after initiation of treatment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Use of naproxen or celecoxib did not improve cognitive function. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high

NSAID use and dementia risk in the Cardiovascular Health Study: role of APOE and NSAID type

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Neurology 2007-11-14

Use of NSAIDs was associated with a lower risk of dementia (adjusted hazard ratio or aHR 0.76, 95% CI or CI 0.60-0.96) and, in particular, AD (aHR 0.63, CI 0.45-0.88), but not VaD (aHR 0.92, CI 0.65-1.28). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,229 Evidence: moderate

Incidence and prevalence of dementia in the Cardiovascular Health Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2004-02-01

Classification resulted in 227 persons with prevalent dementia at entry into the study and 480 incident cases during follow-up. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 227 Evidence: moderate

Naproxen may attenuate cognitive decline in slow decliners while accelerating decline in fast decliners. 2 key findings →

Participants: 2,388 Evidence: low

Enrollment began in March 2001 and ended in December 2004 when treatments were suspended because of concerns regarding cardiovascular safety of the treatments. 1 key finding →

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

On the basis of their findings in this large community population of elderly people, the authors conclude that a wide range of dementia-associated mental and behavioral disturbances afflict the majority of individuals with dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 5,092 Evidence: low

Participants were most likely to develop depression, apathy, or anxiety, and least likely to develop elation or disinhibition. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The APOE epsilon4 allele acts as a potent risk factor for AD by accelerating onset. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,308 Evidence: moderate

Although statin use might be less frequent in those with prevalent dementia, we found no association between statin use and subsequent onset of dementia or AD. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,895 Evidence: low

Serum cholesterol and risk of Alzheimer disease: a community-based cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2005-10-01

The data do not support an association between serum total cholesterol or high density lipoprotein in late life and subsequent risk of dementia or Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

These results do not support claims for the efficacy of nizatidine in over-the-counter dosages as a means of preventing symptom progression in AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Occupational exposure to pesticides increases the risk of incident AD: the Cache County study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2010-05-01

Commonly used organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides inhibit acetylcholinesterase at synapses in the somatic, autonomic, and central nervous systems and may therefore have lasting effects on the nervous system. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Parental death during childhood is associated with higher prevalence of AD, with different critical periods for father's versus mother's death, with strength of these associations attenuated by remarriage of the widowed parent. 5 key findings →

Participants: 4,108 Evidence: low

The authors, a group of investigators with extensive research and clinical experience related to both late-life depression and Alzheimer disease (AD), propose provisional affective and behavioral inclusion and exclusion diagnostic criteria for Depression of AD.

Evidence: low

↑ 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