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.

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

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

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

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

These data suggest a revision of the original ADAPT hypothesis that NSAIDs reduce AD risk, as follows: NSAIDs have an adverse effect in later stages of AD pathogenesis, whereas asymptomatic individuals treated with conventional NSAIDs such as naproxen experience reduced AD incidence, but only after 2 to 3 years. 5 key findings →

Participants: 54 Evidence: high

Sertraline did not demonstrate efficacy for the treatment depression symptoms in patients with AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 67 Evidence: high

At 6 months, compared with usual care, participants receiving the intervention had better QOL (QOL-AD score, 0.09 [95% CI, -0.63 to 0.82] vs -0.88 [95% CI, -1.62 to -0.13]; treatment effect estimate, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.07-1.86; P = .03). 4 key findings →

Participants: 612 Evidence: high

The primary outcome was difference in the change in Neuropsychiatric Inventory apathy scores for oxytocin versus placebo periods in the per-protocol population after 6 weeks of treatment. 2 key findings →

Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 94 Evidence: early

Risks and benefits of unapproved disease-modifying treatments for neurodegenerative disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Neurology 2019-12-02

Assignment to active treatment was not beneficial for any of the indications examined and may have been slightly disadvantageous for patients with Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 39,875 Evidence: high

How effective are interventions with caregivers? An updated meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2002-06-01

The combined interventions produced a significant improvement of 0.14 to 0.41 standard deviation units, on average, for caregiver burden, depression, subjective well-being, perceived caregiver satisfaction, ability/knowledge, and care receiver symptoms. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

In this trial, memantine did not show an advantage over placebo based on protocol-specified primary or secondary analyses in patients with mild to moderate AD on stable ChEI regimens. 2 key findings →

Participants: 433 Evidence: high

Providing care for a frail older adult has been described as a stressful experience that may erode psychological well-being and physical health of caregivers. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Cognitive decline is a debilitating manifestation of disease progression in Parkinson's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,200 Evidence: moderate

The trial did not show efficacy of GbE, however, the lack of decline of the placebo patients may have compromised the sensitivity of the trial to detect a treatment effect. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

In elderly persons, antipsychotic drugs are clinically prescribed off-label for a number of disorders outside of their Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Treatment with sertraline in patients with dAD is not associated with greater improvement in cognition at week 24 than treatment with placebo. 2 key findings →

Participants: 67 Evidence: high

Effects of caregiving on physical health have received less theoretical and empirical attention than effects on psychological health. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Because most interventions have domain-specific outcomes, clinicians must tailor interventions according to the specific needs of the individual caregivers. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

We used Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to examine the distribution of incident ARIA-E from the start of bapineuzumab treatment and proportional hazards regression models to assess risk factors associated with ARIA. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 262 Evidence: low

Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies are currently defined by their clinical features, with α-synuclein pathology as the gold standard to establish the definitive diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Levels of P-S396-tau, P-T181-tau, and Aβ1-42 in extracts of neurally derived blood exosomes predict the development of AD up to 10 years before clinical onset. 2 key findings →

Participants: 57 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