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.

Overall, 318 patients with AD completed BPST with an improvement of 5.6 points on the total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI; mean [SD], 63.3 [16.0] to 57.7 [18.4], t = 4.8, df = 317, p 95% of patients. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 318 Evidence: high

The GuidAge study is the largest study carried out in Europe on the prevention of AD. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,854 Evidence: high

Tango-therapy vs physical exercise in older people with dementia; a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. BMC geriatrics 2023-10-24

After 3 months, IG improved gait speed (p = 0.016), implying a statistically significant difference between groups in favour of IG (p = 0.003). 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 31 Evidence: high

Among 137 randomized participants, 2 were excluded for not meeting eligibility criteria, leaving 135 (mean [SD] age, 69.3 [3.8] years; 83 female [61%]) eligible for analysis. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Post-MI Hosp-CR and Home-CR are similarly effective in the short term and improve TWC and HRQL in each age group. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 90 Evidence: high

Observational studies support the use of NSAIDs for prevention of AD, but RCT do not. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Regular exercise, especially mind-body exercise with integrated cognitive and motor coordination, may help with preservation of global ability in elders at risk of cognitive decline; however, logistics to promote long-term practice and optimize adherence needs to be revisited. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 389 Evidence: high

Educational support for general practitioners should concentrate on epidemiological knowledge, disclosure of the diagnosis and management of behaviour problems in dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

At 16 weeks, 67.5% of intervention caregivers reported improvement in targeted problem behavior, compared with 45.8% of caregivers in a no-treatment control group (P=.002), and reduced upset with (P=.03) and enhanced confidence managing (P=.01) the behavior. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Rural subjects with higher health literacy were more likely to want comfort care compared to those with lower levels of health literacy. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 43 Evidence: high

MYB will be the largest internet-based trial to attempt to prevent cognitive decline and potentially dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Older adults with cognitive disorders can learn smartphone-based memory strategies and doing so benefits prospective memory functioning and independence. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The aim of the reported trial was to investigate the safety and efficacy of memantine in mild to moderate vascular dementia (VaD). 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 579 Evidence: high

There are 9.9 million new cases of dementia in the world every year. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high

Aspirin in Alzheimer's disease (AD2000): a randomised open-label trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2008-01-01

Cardiovascular risk factors and a history of vascular disease can increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 156 Evidence: high

Mean age ± SD was 83.4 ± 9.1 years. Most were female (72.0%), white (92.3%), non-Hispanic (84.6%), and lived in nursing homes (76.9%). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 147 Evidence: high

The online SiD decision aid increased preparation for decision making about firearm access in this sample of ADRD caregivers in the United States. 5 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate

Music Interventions for Dementia and Depression in Elderly care was a large, multinational, cluster-randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design to examine the effects of group music therapy, recreational choir singing, or both compared with standard care. 2 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 1,021 Evidence: null result

No significant difference between the three groups in ADAS-Cog was found at the primary endpoint at 15 months (CPR vs health advice, β= -0·04 [95% CI -0·34 to 0·26]; RFM vs health advice, β= -0·14 [-0·44 to 0·15]; CPR vs RFM, β=0·10 [-0·19 to 0·40]) nor at the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. 1 key finding →

Design: RCT Participants: 456 Evidence: null result

Counseling and support preserved SRH in vulnerable caregivers. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Encoding-task fMRI was successfully implemented in a single-site, 24-week, AD randomized controlled trial. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 24 Evidence: high

This study found no effect of ongoing BDZR use on ADAS-Cog scores in those with mild to moderate AD over 18 months. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 448 Evidence: high

Piracetam for dementia or cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2001-01-01

Selection criteria All unconfounded trials specified as randomized in which treatment with piracetam was administered for more than a day and compared with placebo in patients with dementia of Alzheimer type, vascular dementia,or mixed vascular and Alzheimer's disease, or unclassified dementia, or cognitive impairment not fulfilling the criteria for dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Lecithin for dementia and cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2000-01-01

Alzheimer's disease sufferers have been found to have a lack of the enzyme responsible for converting choline into acetylcholine within the brain. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 265 Evidence: high

Our pilot studies (National Institutes of Health [NIH] stage 1A) have shown that MHB is feasible, acceptable, and associated with improvement in lifestyle behavior and cognitive outcomes. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 225 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