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

Showing 1–22 of 22 studies in Clinical trials published 2026 · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Clinical trials” covers

Clinical trials — Tests of a treatment in people, to find out whether it works and whether it is safe.

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.

619 Colombian API registrants were prescreened, 315 were assessed for eligibility, and 252 were enrolled (crenezumab-carrier, n=85; placebo-carrier, n=84; placebo-non-carrier, n=83; 160 [63%] women and 92 [37%] men) between Dec 20, 2013, and Feb 27, 2017. 237 (94%) completed the trial, with final data collection on March 22, 2022. 5 key findings →

Participants: 85 Evidence: high

BackgroundZervimesine (CT1812) is a first-in-class, brain-penetrant sigma-2 receptor ligand that prevents binding and displaces Aβ42 oligomers from receptors on neuronal synapses. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 153 Evidence: high

Mean percentage change in plasma p-tau217 in the SAMe group was an increase of 53.22 (standard deviation [SD] 159.19) compared to 25.34 (SD 94.83) in the placebo group (standardized mean difference 37.58, 95% confidence interval -32.61, 107.76; p = 0.288). 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 63 Evidence: high

EVOKE (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04777396) and EVOKE+ (NCT04777409) tested whether oral semaglutide, the GLP-1 diabetes/weight-loss drug, could slow early Alzheimer's disease progression in a combined 3,808 participants over up to 156 weeks. 4 key findings →

Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 3,808 Evidence: null result

Individuals with cognitive profiles consistent with probable executive MCI were identified using simple assessments of global cognition, memory and executive functions in a community-dwelling older population. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 161 Evidence: high

Curcumin exhibits neuroprotective activity in preclinical models of the four NDs analysed, acting on six interconnected mechanisms and the gut-brain axis. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The PROMPPT trial will assess whether review by trained clinical pharmacists working in general practices can support safe opioid reduction without compromising pain management and quality of life. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Donanemab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the insoluble form of β-amyloid found in plaques, significantly slows cognitive and functional decline of AD in participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild AD-related dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: phase-3-trial Evidence: moderate

It was not possible to demonstrate significant differences on the co-primary clinical endpoints (ADAS-cog 11 and ADCS-ADL 23 ) at 52 weeks due to symptomatic activity in the control arm. 5 key findings →

Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 598 Evidence: null result

Amyloid and Tau Neuropathologic Stage, Coexisting Brain Disease, and Cognitive Status in a Population-Based Autopsy Cohort

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-10-22

Among 2711 decedents (mean [SD] age, 73.4 [14.4] years; range, 23 to 111 years; 1340 [49.4%] female), 531 (19.6%) met both thresholds, 270 (10.0%) the amyloid threshold only, 207 (7.6%) the tau threshold only, and 1703 (62.8%) neither. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,467 Evidence: moderate

In this trial, $5 and $25 noncontingent monetary incentives included in mailed recruitment letters did not produce a detectable improvement in response among ADRD caregiving dyads. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 103 Evidence: high

Older adults in senior living communities (SLCs) often face barriers to maintaining emotional well-being and family ties. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 90 Evidence: high

We investigated brain, inflammation, cardiometabolic, and gut health changes associated with a six-month multidomain lifestyle intervention in Dutch older adults at risk for cognitive decline and dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 53 Evidence: high

New Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnostics and Psychological Clinical Perspectives

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. PsyArXiv 2026-07-23

Recent advances in blood-based biomarkers have transformed the early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), enabling the identification of biological risk at preclinical and presymptomatic stages in a noninvasive and accessible manner. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Effects of Practice Testing with Corrective Feedback on Long-Term BPSD Knowledge in Dementia Caregivers: Randomized Controlled Trial

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-07-20

Practice testing with detailed, corrective feedback is an effective intervention for targeting caregivers’ dementia-related knowledge. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Differential association of step count with depressive and anxiety symptoms in older adults at risk of dementia

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-07-13

This provides the first evidence in older adults with cognitive concerns that higher step counts are associated with fewer depressive but more anxiety symptoms. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 629 Evidence: high

TrustPGS: When can a polygenic score be trusted? A per-individual reliability framework across ancestries

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. bioRxiv 2026-07-07

Polygenic scores summarise genetic predisposition to a trait, but a population-level accuracy figure cannot tell a clinician whether a given prediction is reliable for the person in front of them. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

A 12-week HIIT+RT intervention was more effective than HIIT alone in increasing the thickness/volume signature in individuals with CAD, yet no differences were observed compared to UC and the interventions did not affect the GMMD signature. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 105 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