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 276–300 of 307 studies in Alzheimer's research & therapy (page 12 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.

The results from the gantenerumab phase 3 programs are expected by the end of 2022 and will add critical information to the collective knowledge on the search for effective AD treatments. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Dynamic functional connectivity patterns associated with dementia risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2022-05-23

Associations were found between times spent in (i) a "weakly connected" state and lower self-reported engagement in early- and mid-life cognitive activity and higher LDL cholesterol; (ii) a "SN-negatively connected" state and higher blood pressure, higher depression score, and lower body mass index (BMI); (iii) a "strongly connected" state and higher self-reported engagement in early-life cognitive activity, Preclinical Alzheimer's cognitive composite-5 score, and BMI; and (iv) a "DMN-negatively connected" state and higher self-reported engagement in early- and mid-life stimulating activities and lower LDL cholesterol and blood pressure. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the current study, we aimed to develop an algorithm based on biomarkers obtained through non- or minimally invasive procedures to identify healthy elderly subjects who have an increased risk of abnormal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid beta42 (Aβ) levels consistent with the presence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. 4 key findings →

Participants: 200 Evidence: low

We found that both Adu and SUS reduced the total plaque area in the hippocampus to a similar degree, with no additive effect in the combination treatment (SUS+Adu). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The symptomatic drugs currently on the market for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have no effect on disease progression, and this creates a large unmet medical need. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

We have discovered defined determinants on mis-disordered truncated tau protein which are responsible for tau oligomerisation leading to neurofibrillary degeneration. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Open questions for Alzheimer's disease immunotherapy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2014-01-07

Perhaps more definitively than any other class of novel Alzheimer's disease (AD) therapy, pre-clinical studies in mouse models of amyloid β (Aβ) deposition have established the disease-modifying potential of anti-Aβ immunotherapy. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This study provides evidence that the increase in dementia-free life years went together with an absolute compression of life years with dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

There is an urgent need for objective markers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD)-related cognitive impairment in people with Down syndrome (DS) to improve diagnosis, monitor disease progression and assess response to disease-modifying therapies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 80 Evidence: moderate

HHV-6A infection induces amyloid-beta expression and activation of microglial cells

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2019-12-12

The control of viral infections in the brain involves the activation of microglial cells, the macrophages of the brain that are constantly surveying the central nervous system, and the production of amyloid-beta (Aβ) as an anti-microbial molecule. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) is characterized by the accumulation of beta-amyloid (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles composed of hyperphosphorylated tau, which together lead to neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Expression of LRP1 by neurons in proximity to senile amyloid plaques does not appear to play a major role in modulating the formation of these proximal deposits or in the appearance of the associated neuritic pathology. 3 key findings →

Participants: 13 Evidence: low

Fluid biomarkers improve the diagnostic accuracy in dementia and provide an objective measure potentially useful as a therapeutic response in clinical trials. 4 key findings →

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