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.

Effect of citalopram on agitation in Alzheimer disease: the CitAD randomized clinical trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 82 out of 100. JAMA 2014-02-01

Among patients with probable Alzheimer disease and agitation who were receiving psychosocial intervention, the addition of citalopram compared with placebo significantly reduced agitation and caregiver distress; however, cognitive and cardiac adverse effects of citalopram may limit its practical application at the dosage of 30 mg per day. 5 key findings →

Participants: 186 Evidence: high

Changes in Alzheimer Disease Blood Biomarkers and Associations With Incident All-Cause Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. JAMA 2024-10-15

Plasma biomarkers of AD neuropathology, neuronal injury, and astrogliosis increase with age and are associated with known dementia risk factors. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,525 Evidence: high

Ginkgo biloba for preventing cognitive decline in older adults: a randomized trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. JAMA 2009-12-01

Compared with placebo, the use of G. biloba, 120 mg twice daily, did not result in less cognitive decline in older adults with normal cognition or with mild cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,545 Evidence: high

Genome-wide significance in fully adjusted models (sex, age, APOE genotype, population stratification) was observed for a SNP in ABCA7 (rs115550680, allele = G; frequency, 0.09 cases and 0.06 controls; odds ratio [OR], 1.79 [95% CI, 1.47-2.12]; P = 2.2 × 10(-9)), which is in linkage disequilibrium with SNPs previously associated with Alzheimer disease in Europeans (0.8 Conclusions and relevance In this meta-analysis of data from African American participants, Alzheimer disease was significantly associated with variants in ABCA7 and with other genes that have been associated with Alzheimer disease in individuals of European ancestry. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,896 Evidence: high

Association Between Midlife Vascular Risk Factors and Estimated Brain Amyloid Deposition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. JAMA 2017-04-01

An increasing number of midlife vascular risk factors was significantly associated with elevated amyloid SUVR; this association was not significant for late-life risk factors. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

With the sequential parallel comparison design, 152 patients received dextromethorphan-quinidine and 127 received placebo during the study. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 93 Evidence: high

Sleep-disordered breathing, hypoxia, and risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia in older women

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA 2011-08-01

Among older women, those with sleep-disordered breathing compared with those without sleep-disordered breathing had an increased risk of developing cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 60 Evidence: low

Estrogen replacement therapy for 1 year did not slow disease progression nor did it improve global, cognitive, or functional outcomes in women with mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 42 Evidence: high

Association of Echocardiographic Measures of Left Atrial Function and Size With Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA 2022-03-01

In this exploratory analysis of a US community-based cohort, several echocardiographic measures of lower LA function were significantly associated with an increased risk of subsequent dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 4,096 Evidence: moderate

An AI-Powered Lifestyle Intervention vs Human Coaching in the Diabetes Prevention Program

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA 2025-10-27

A total of 368 participants were included (median [IQR] age, 58 [50-65] years; 71% were female, 27% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 61% were White; median [IQR] BMI, 32.3 [28.5-37.1]). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 368 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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