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 307 studies in Alzheimer's research & therapy (page 1 of 13) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

This list as a page: Alzheimer's Research & Therapy in the library →

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.

Primary outcome was feasibility of the multimodal intervention, evaluated by recruitment rate during a 6-month recruitment phase, overall adherence in each intervention arm, and 6-month retention rate. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 93 Evidence: high

BAN2401-G000-201 did not meet the 12-month primary endpoint. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 18 Evidence: high

Enrollment was undertaken between May 18, 2021, and September 8, 2023. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 210 Evidence: high

Lecanemab treatment resulted in significant reduction in amyloid plaques and a slowing of clinical decline. 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 856 Evidence: high

All autonomic networks were positively associated with Aβ42/40 ratio and remained so after adjustment for age, sex, and APOE4 carrier status. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 122 Evidence: high

Within 17 months, participant recruitment has been successfully completed (N = 1210; mean age: 67.7 years (SD: 4.6); 64% female). 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,210 Evidence: high

EQW affected FCN2 (Cohen's d -0.019), PAI-1 (Cohen's d -0.033), sVCAM-1 (Cohen's d 0.035) and a cytokine-cytokine cluster (Cohen's d 0.037) significantly compared with placebo. 4 key findings →

Participants: 13,752 Evidence: low

Updated safety results from phase 3 lecanemab study in early Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2024-05-10

Overall, 1795 participants from Core and 1612 participants with at least one dose of lecanemab (Core + OLE) were included. 1 key finding →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: high

A phase III randomized trial of gantenerumab in prodromal Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2017-12-08

The study was stopped early for futility, but dose-dependent effects observed in exploratory analyses on select clinical and biomarker endpoints suggest that higher dosing with gantenerumab may be necessary to achieve clinical efficacy. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,089 Evidence: high

This pilot study showed that functional tasks exercise using simulated functional tasks as a means of combined cognitive and exercise program is feasible and beneficial in improving the memory and functional status of older adults with mild cognitive impairment as well as reducing the care-related burdens of their caregivers. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 59 Evidence: high

27-OH appears to be a marker not only for dementia/AD risk, but also for monitoring the effects of preventive interventions on cholesterol metabolism. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 47 Evidence: high

Group 3 showed less decrease in the SIB score at 12 and 24 weeks compared with group 1 (P < 0.05). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 31 Evidence: high

A phase II randomized trial of sodium oligomannate in Alzheimer's dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2020-09-14

Comparing with the placebo group (n = 83, change - 1.45), the ADAS-cog12 score change in the GV-971 600-mg group (n = 76) was - 1.39 (p = 0.89) and the GV-971 900-mg group (n = 83) was - 2.58 (p = 0.30). 5 key findings →

Participants: 83 Evidence: high

The FINGER MRI exploratory sub-study did not show significant differences between the intervention and control groups on changes in regional brain volumes, regional cortical thicknesses, or WML volume after 2 years in at-risk elderly without substantial impairment. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 132 Evidence: high

Masitinib is an orally administered tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets activated cells of the neuroimmune system (mast cells and microglia). 4 key findings →

Participants: 182 Evidence: high

We identified that combining plasma p-tau217 and a brief cognitive composite score was strongly related to greater risk of progression to AD dementia in MCI patients, suggesting that these measures could be key components of future prognostic algorithms for early AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 110 Evidence: low

The 4-week USMART modestly improved information retrieval in older people with MCI, and was well accepted with minimal technical support. 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

A significant drug-placebo difference on the ADAS-Cog12 favoring GV-971 was present at each measurement time point, measurable at the week 4 visit and continuing throughout the trial. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 818 Evidence: high

Fifty-one AD patients enrolled, mean age 73.5. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

At randomization, the mean age is 72, 50% female, 77% with CDR-global score 0.5, and mean MMSE score 23.8. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 464 Evidence: high

Based on integrated review of laboratory, electrocardiogram, adverse events, and MRI, AAB-003 was safe and well tolerated up to 8 mg/kg for up to 91 weeks (FIH and extension trials) in patients with mild to moderate AD. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high

This fully-automated and available blood-based biomarker assay therefore may be useful for early detection, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of AD. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 463 Evidence: moderate

Lecanemab was generally well tolerated by most patients with early AD and treatment appeared to be more effective and safer in patients with low CSF-ptau181 levels. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 234 Evidence: moderate

Our findings demonstrate that 10-year CP exposure was associated with a 1.707-fold increase in the risk of developing AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,291 Evidence: moderate

Variants of the gene triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative disorders. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical 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