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.

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

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

We aimed to determine the effect of live attenuated herpes zoster vaccination on incident dementia diagnoses among people aged 70 years and older using a natural experiment in Ontario, Canada, and to triangulate these findings, using a second natural experiment in Ontario and a quasi-experimental approach that uses data from multiple Canadian provinces. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 232,124 Evidence: moderate

A statistically significant age-adjusted association was observed between the A1C level and the score on all four cognitive tests. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

A total of 19 reviews containing 37 meta-analyses were included umbrella review. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 19 Evidence: high

Participants receiving CDCM showed significantly fewer behavioral and psychological symptoms (adjusted mean difference [AMD] in NPI score, -10.26 [95% CI, -16.95 to -3.58]; P = .003; Cohen d, -0.78 [95% CI, -1.09 to -0.46]), better mental health (AMD in SF-12 Mental Component Summary score, 2.26 [95% CI, 0.31-4.21]; P = .02; Cohen d, 0.26 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.51]), and lower caregiver burden (AMD in BIZA-D score, -0.59 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.37]; P Conclusions and relevance In this secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial, CDCM was associated with improved patient, caregiver, and health system-relevant outcomes over 36 months beyond the intervention period. 3 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 428 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

Practice Guidelines for the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2000-08-01

The of establishing the diagnosis of pneumonia and cause is with the antibiotic studies for of community-acquired studies for of community-acquired The diagnosis of is based on a of clinical and laboratory The diagnosis of is and and as well as disease, congestive heart failure, with pneumonia and cases of and are of do not require and are the of antibiotic antimicrobial is usually for and a chest radiography is usually to establish the diagnosis of examination to or is for detecting pneumonia Chest radiography is considered is for the etiologic the and or conditions. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Type 2 diabetes mellitus and cognitive impairment are 2 of the most common chronic conditions found in persons aged > or = 60 years. 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,977 Evidence: high

Treatment of dementia with cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine can result in statistically significant but clinically marginal improvement in measures of cognition and global assessment of dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Asundexian for Secondary Stroke Prevention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2026-04-15

Among 12,327 patients who underwent randomization (6162 to the asundexian group and 6165 to the placebo group), the incidence of ischemic stroke was lower in the asundexian group than in the placebo group (6.2% vs. 8.4%; cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.84; P<0.001). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 12,327 Evidence: low

After a median follow-up time of 14.3 (7.9-20.0) years, dementia was recorded in 530 (1.2%) individuals with type 1 diabetes and 1,867 (0.9%) age-, sex-, and county-matched control individuals (mean baseline age 33.0 [14.0] years). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 43,440 Evidence: moderate

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

Cognitive decline and dementia in diabetes--systematic overview of prospective observational studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Diabetologia 2005-11-08

Compared to people without diabetes, people with diabetes have a greater rate of decline in cognitive function and a greater risk of cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

At baseline, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics and in outcome variables (HHI, GSES, and SF-12v2 mental component score and physical component score) between users and nonusers. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 101 Evidence: high

There are limited data regarding cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma biomarkers among patients with Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy (CAA). 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Pharmacological treatment of Parkinson disease: a review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA 2014-04-01

Although levodopa is the most effective medication available for treating the motor symptoms of Parkinson disease, in certain instances (eg, mild symptoms, tremor as the only or most prominent symptom, aged Conclusions and relevance Strong evidence supports using levodopa and dopamine agonists for motor symptoms at all stages of Parkinson disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The role of atrial fibrillation in cognitive impairment and dementia, independent of stroke, is uncertain. 4 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 31,506 Evidence: high

Data collection began in Ontario and Alberta Canada in June 2015 and is expected to be completed in June 2017. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial 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