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 26–50 of 307 studies in Alzheimer's research & therapy (page 2 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.

Plasma p-tau217 showed the strongest individual association with Aβ PET status (area under the curve [AUC], 0.85). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,407 Evidence: moderate

None of the three plasma biomarker was associated with NPS at baseline. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 76 Evidence: moderate

A total of 32,901 (1.12%) participants developed dementia, of which 74.4% and 11.0% were attributable to Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia, respectively, during the median follow-up of 5.5 years. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,930,816 Evidence: moderate

Randomized crossover trial of a modified ketogenic diet in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2021-02-23

This is the first randomized trial to investigate the impact of a ketogenic diet in patients with uniform diagnoses of AD. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 26 Evidence: high

ROC curves of the five best two-, three-, and four-parameter combinations were analyzed for significant superiority by a bootstrapping wrapper around a support vector machine with linear kernel. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 115 Evidence: moderate

Anticancer drugs repurposed for Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2021-05-05

Based on a structured search on the ClinicalTrials.gov and the EudraCT databases, we identified 13 clinical trials testing 11 different approved anticancer agents (five tyrosine kinase inhibitors, two retinoid X receptor agonists, two immunomodulatory agents, one histone deacetylase inhibitor, and one monoclonal antibody) in the AD continuum. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Baseline plasma GFAP could detect abnormal CSF Aβ42/40 and CSF Aβ42/T-tau with an AUC of 0.79 (95% CI 0.72-0.86) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.72-0.86), respectively. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Brain volume analyses included 622 participants (mean age ± SD: 70.9 ± 10.2) with an average of 3.3 MRI scans over 4.7 years. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 622 Evidence: moderate

In participants who progressed to amyloid-positive MCI, plasma p-tau181/Aβ42 and GFAP diverged from stable controls earliest (about 13 and 12 years before symptom onset, respectively), followed by Aβ42/Aβ40, p-tau181, and NfL, all of which became abnormal before symptom onset. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate

Additionally, our results indicate that AD subjects carrying APOE ε4 are more responsive to the neuroprotective effects of physical activity. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Overall estimates of the treatment effect were calculated by using a fixed-effects model, and statistical heterogeneity was measured by using a standard chi-squared statistic. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The use of PRSs may be beneficial for increased precision in risk estimates among APOE4 carriers. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 712 Evidence: moderate

We investigated the effect of crenezumab, a humanized anti-amyloid-beta (Aβ) immunoglobulin (Ig)G4 monoclonal antibody, on biomarkers of amyloid pathology, neurodegeneration, and disease progression in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 26 Evidence: high

The maximal tolerated dose of PQ912 has been identified and the results support future studies at still lower doses reaching > 50% target occupancy, a longer up-titration phase to potentially induce adaptation and longer treatment periods to confirm the early signals of efficacy as seen in this study. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

High levels of Aβ42 and tau in both young controls and DS suggest these proteins are produced by normal physiological processes, whereas the changes seen in later life are consistent with emergence of pathological alterations. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 100 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