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.

Atypical antipsychotic drugs may be associated with a small increased risk for death compared with placebo. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,353 Evidence: high

Escitalopram for agitation in Alzheimer's dementia: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Nature Medicine 2025-03-25

Citalopram is effective in treating agitation in Alzheimer's dementia (AD), but it is associated with cognitive and cardiac risks, likely due to its R-enantiomer. 5 key findings →

Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 173 Evidence: null result

Sertraline did not demonstrate efficacy for the treatment depression symptoms in patients with AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 67 Evidence: high

Compared with respective matched nonusers, individuals receiving haloperidol had an increased mortality risk of 3.8% (95% CI, 1.0%-6.6%; P Conclusions and relevance The absolute effect of antipsychotics on mortality in elderly patients with dementia may be higher than previously reported and increases with dose. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 90,786 Evidence: moderate

The modern era of drug development for Alzheimer's disease began with the proposal of the cholinergic hypothesis of memory impairment and the 1984 research criteria for Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Lack of evidence for the efficacy of memantine in mild Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2011-04-11

Summary results for patients with mild AD were obtained by contrasting the summary results for patients with mild or moderate AD with the summary results for the subset of patients with moderate AD. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 431 Evidence: high

The trial did not show efficacy of GbE, however, the lack of decline of the placebo patients may have compromised the sensitivity of the trial to detect a treatment effect. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Considering several covariates together allowed the identification of responders. 2 key findings →

Participants: 186 Evidence: low

The authors believe these design elements are important features to be included in trials of depression and other neuropsychiatric disturbances in Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

In AD patients with symptoms of psychosis, agitation, or aggressive behavior, medications can have a small but significant impact on caregiver burden. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 361 Evidence: high

We describe the first large-scale, potentially label-enabling clinical trial of a preclinical treatment for ADAD. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 300 Evidence: high

Of 482 participants in the safety population, 140 of 158 participants (88.6%) assigned to placebo, 117 of 166 participants (70.5%) to 224 mg of edonerpic maleate, and 120 of 158 participants (76.0%) to 448 mg of edonerpic maleate completed the trial. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 482 Evidence: high

A cohort of patients was followed up longitudinally and the likelihood of arriving at two cognitive end points was assessed using the Cox proportional hazards model and eight explanatory variables. 4 key findings →

Participants: 135 Evidence: moderate

Severity of psychiatric symptoms, behavioral disturbances, and patients' quality of life are the main correlates of caregivers' experience burden. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Low cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-beta(1-42) concentration and high total-tau/Abeta(1-42) ratio have been recommended to support the diagnosis of prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD) in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and also to select patients for clinical trials (Shaw et al, Ann Neurol 2009;65:403-13; Dubois et al, Lancet Neurol 2007;6:734-46). 4 key findings →

Participants: 400 Evidence: low

The construct of psychosis of dementia was validated, and the severity of both psychosis and aggressiveness was reduced with risperidone treatment in a robust and dose-related way, with a continuing response over the 12-week trial period. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Change detected by the MCI-CGIC was associated with baseline clinical severity and with change in clinical ratings over 6 and 12 months, supporting the validity of a CGIC approach in MCI. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

↑ 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