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 1–25 of 33 studies with an author at Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA) (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 33 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

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.

Decades of research have revealed numerous risk factors for mental disorders beyond genetics, but their consistency and magnitude remain uncer-tain. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 176 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

The lack of strong association between brain beta-amyloid deposition and cognitive impairment has been a challenge for the Alzheimer's disease (AD) field. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 678 Evidence: high

We analyzed 1,240 MRIs from 473 patients (age: 69.2 ± 7.4 [range: 49-87]; 32.8% women). 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,240 Evidence: moderate

Of 31 624 156 adults discharged from French hospitals between 2008 and 2013, 1 109 343 were diagnosed with dementia and were included in the analyses. 2 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 156 Evidence: moderate

Of 486 older adults who provided consent, 375 (with rMDD, MCI, or both) received at least 1 intervention session (mean [SD] age, 72.2 [6.4] years; 232 women [62%] and 143 men [38%]). 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

No statistical difference was found in the efficacy of citalopram and risperidone for the treatment of either agitation or psychotic symptoms in patients with dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 103 Evidence: high

Sensitivity to psychotropic medications presents a therapeutic challenge when treating neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Our results suggest that microstructural features derived from NODDI such as fISO might be useful adjunct markers to tau, which needs to be confirmed in longitudinal studies. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 80 Evidence: moderate

The Electrophysiology Professional Interest Area (EPIA) and Global Brain Consortium endorsed recommendations on candidate electroencephalography (EEG) measures for Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

There is a strong association between late-life depression, cognitive impairment, cerebrovascular disease, and poor cognitive outcomes, including progressive dementia, especially Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Clinical, imaging, and pathological heterogeneity of the Alzheimer's disease syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2013-01-09

For example, focal temporal lobe dysfunction is associated with a pure amnestic syndrome, very slow decline, with atrophy and neurofibrillary tangles limited largely to the medial temporal region including the entorhinal cortex. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Given the recent acknowledgement of the complex mixed pathologies that contribute to the clinical expression of dementia, various cohort studies have aimed to examine Alzheimer's disease and cerebrovascular disease as comorbid pathologies, with neuroimaging playing a central role in these studies. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and major depressive disorder (MDD) are reciprocal risk factors, and both elevate dementia risk. 4 key findings →

Participants: 15,765 Evidence: low

The 2024 Lancet Commission Report on dementia prevention has identified 14 modifiable risk factors that account for approximately 45% of global dementia cases. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The ViT approach predicted dementia with 76.5% balanced accuracy, outperforming human-scored features (74.3%) and existing deep learning models (MiniVGG = 73.3%, MobileNetV2 = 72.3%, relevance factor variational autoencoder = 69.1%) on the TDRA dataset. 3 key findings →

Participants: 862 Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an early stage of non-age-related cognitive decline with an increased risk of progressing to dementia. 4 key findings →

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