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.

Trial of the MIND Diet for Prevention of Cognitive Decline in Older Persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 87 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2023-07-18

Among cognitively unimpaired participants with a family history of dementia, changes in cognition and brain MRI outcomes from baseline to year 3 did not differ significantly between those who followed the MIND diet and those who followed the control diet with mild caloric restriction. 5 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 604 Evidence: null result

Two phase 3 trials of bapineuzumab in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 85 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2014-01-01

Bapineuzumab did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with Alzheimer's disease, despite treatment differences in biomarkers observed in APOE ε4 carriers. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,090 Evidence: high

ARIA is an adverse event associated with donanemab treatment that requires safety monitoring. 4 key findings →

Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 3,030 Evidence: high

The Alzheimer Disease Genetics Consortium (ADGC) performed a genome-wide association study of late-onset Alzheimer disease using a three-stage design consisting of a discovery stage (stage 1) and two replication stages (stages 2 and 3). 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

We identified rare coding variants associated with Alzheimer's disease in a three-stage case-control study of 85,133 subjects. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 85,133 Evidence: moderate

There were 813 participants in CREAD (mean [SD] age, 70.7 [8.2] years; 483 female and 330 male) and 806 in CREAD2 (mean [SD] age, 70.9 [7.7] years; 456 female and 350 male). 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 3,664 Evidence: high

In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 8,791 Evidence: high

Enrollment was undertaken between May 18, 2021, and September 8, 2023. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 210 Evidence: high

During the CEE plus MPA intervention phase, the numbers of CHD cases were 196 for CEE plus MPA vs 159 for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.45) and 206 vs 155, respectively, for invasive breast cancer (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.01-1.53). 3 key findings →

Participants: 8,506 Evidence: low

The task force issued five statements related to the management of anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adults admitted to the ICU. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 24 Evidence: high

Updated safety results from phase 3 lecanemab study in early Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2024-05-10

Overall, 1795 participants from Core and 1612 participants with at least one dose of lecanemab (Core + OLE) were included. 1 key finding →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: high

Dose group efficacy required a significant benefit over placebo for the primary end point and 1 or more key secondary end points. 4 key findings →

Participants: 933 Evidence: high

Association of Amyloid and Tau With Cognition in Preclinical Alzheimer Disease: A Longitudinal Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2019-08-01

An antecedent rise in Aβ was associated with subsequent changes in tau (1.07 flortaucipir standardized uptake value ratios [SUVr]/PiB-SUVr; 95% CI, 0.13-3.46; P = .02). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 279 Evidence: moderate

Sex Differences in Longitudinal Tau-PET in Preclinical Alzheimer Disease: A Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2025-03-03

Mounting evidence in adults without AD indicates that females exhibit higher tau deposition than age-matched males, particularly in the setting of elevated β-amyloid (Aβ), but the evidence for sex differences in tau accumulation rates is inconclusive. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,376 Evidence: high

A major unanswered question in the dementia field is whether cognitively unimpaired individuals who harbor both Alzheimer's disease neuropathological hallmarks (that is, amyloid-β plaques and tau neurofibrillary tangles) can preserve their cognition over time or are destined to decline. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,325 Evidence: low

Among older adults at risk of cognitive decline and dementia, a structured, higher-intensity intervention had a statistically significant greater benefit on global cognition compared with an unstructured, self-guided intervention. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,056 Evidence: high

African ancestry GWAS of dementia in a large military cohort identifies significant risk loci

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2022-12-22

While genome wide association studies (GWASs) of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) in European (EUR) ancestry cohorts have identified approximately 83 potentially independent AD risk loci, progress in non-European populations has lagged. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,385 Evidence: high

AUC for amyloid and tau PET provide expert recommendations for clinical use of these technologies in the evolving landscape of diagnostics and therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic-review Evidence: moderate

In a large cohort of cognitively unimpaired individuals enrolled in a Phase 3 clinical trial and companion observational study, these findings confirm that higher baseline levels of amyloid and tau markers are associated with increased rates of cognitive decline and progression to functional impairment. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 583 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