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.

Nilvadipine in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease: A randomised controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. PLoS medicine 2018-09-24

This study reports the findings of the first large-scale Phase III investigator-driven clinical trial to slow the rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease with a dihydropyridine (DHP) calcium channel blocker, nilvadipine. 4 key findings →

Participants: 577 Evidence: high

Twelve months' treatment with doxycycline or rifampin, alone or in combination, has no beneficial effects on cognition or function in AD. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 305 Evidence: high

As the physiological impact of chronic stress is difficult to study in humans, naturalistic stressors are invaluable sources of information in this area. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neurodegenerative disorders of ageing (NDAs) such as Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, frontotemporal dementia, Huntington disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis represent a major socio-economic challenge in view of their high prevalence yet poor treatment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Acute hospital dementia care: results from a national audit

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. BMC geriatrics 2016-05-31

Most patients received physical assessments, including mobility (89 %), continence (84 %) and pressure sore risk (87 %); however assessment of pain (75 %), and particularly functioning (36 %) was poor. 3 key findings →

Participants: 660 Evidence: low

We studied the clinical features, pathology, and molecular genetics of a family (Mo) with an autosomal dominant disinhibition, frontal lobe dementia, parkinsonism, and amyotrophy. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Previous studies have indicated a prevalence of dementia in older admissions of ∼42% in a single London teaching hospital, and 21% in four Queensland hospitals. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The normal on and off switching of the PI3-K (phosphoinositide 3-kinase)/Akt pathway, particularly by its major activators insulin and IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1), is a powerful integrator of physiological responses rudimentary to successful aging. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A total of 47 adults aged 55+ years were recruited (50% male; 49% aged 60-69 years; 28% aged above 70 years), and 26 HCPs were involved, comprising dietitians (n = 8); geriatricians (n = 6); clinical therapists (n = 4); and nurses, pharmacists, catering managers and meal delivery service coordinators (n = 2 each). 5 key findings →

Participants: 47 Evidence: low

Within the 440 included surveys, respondents particularly over-estimated frailty prevalence in older hospitalised patients, with two-thirds choosing between 41 and 80% prevalence, when the literature suggests only 23-46%, but paradoxically underestimated the frequency of frailty in people with delirium (more than three quarters of responses across 21-80%; literature suggests 71-93%). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study provides validated conversion tables between the Q mci screen and two widely-used cognitive instruments, to support the use of the Q mci screen in research (facilitating cross-instrument comparability and harmonization across studies), and clinical settings (determining eligibility for disease-modifying therapies). 2 key findings →

Participants: 101 Evidence: moderate

Describing the elements of an effective dementia palliative care service

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. BMC Palliative Care 2025-05-22

The logic model and summary results explain in detail how this dementia palliative care service undertook activities relating to person-centred care, carer support, end-of-life care, accessible care, timely care, and integrated care. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The results support the hypothesis that engaging in physical activity can compensate for urban-rural differences in cognitive performance in ageing. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

↑ 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