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.

Despite immunotherapies significantly increasing the risks of adverse events and ARIA, the data suggest that mAbs can effectively improve the cognitive function of patients with mild and moderate AD. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 21,087 Evidence: high

In the seven longitudinal studies assessing the effect of antihypertensive medication on cognitive impairment or cognitive decline, antihypertensive drugs appeared to be beneficial. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,346,176 Evidence: high

No statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome measures (MMSE and ADAS-Cog) was observed with drug therapy at 36 weeks, at which point all groups had lost, on average, 1 point on the MMSE and gained 2-3 points on the ADAS-Cog scale compared with baseline. 5 key findings →

Participants: 938 Evidence: high

After taking into consideration a possible protopathic bias in the 2 years preceding the AD diagnosis date, benzodiazepine use was not associated with an increased risk of developing AD. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: epidemiology, pathology, diagnosis and management

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. CNS drugs 2012-10-01

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) describes a spectrum of clinically, pathologically and genetically heterogeneous neurodegenerative disorders of unknown aetiology. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A recent phase III trial testing exendin-4 did not show an improvement, which may be linked to the lack of insulin desensitization in the study participants. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Emerging Pharmacological Approaches for Psychosis and Agitation in Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. CNS drugs 2024-12-02

Psychosis and agitation are among the most distressing neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPSs) of Alzheimer's disease (AD), linked to faster disease progression and earlier admission to nursing homes. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Aripiprazole in the treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders: a review of current evidence

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. CNS drugs 2008-01-01

Despite the availability of different classes of drugs for the treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders, there are a number of clinically significant unmet needs, such as a high prevalence of treatment resistance, partial response, subsyndromal symptomatology, recurrence and relapse. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. CNS drugs 2010-05-01

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is a clinically and pathologically heterogeneous syndrome, characterized by progressive decline in behaviour or language associated with degeneration of the frontal and anterior temporal lobes. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The glutamatergic system and Alzheimer's disease: therapeutic implications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. CNS drugs 2003-01-01

Alzheimer's disease affects nearly 5 million Americans currently and, as a result of the baby boomer cohort, is predicted to affect 14 million Americans and 22 million persons totally worldwide in just a few decades. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Disability, characterised by the loss of ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL), is a defining feature of dementia that results in growing caregiver burden and the eventual need for alternative care or nursing home placement. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

[(18)F]Florbetaben: a review in β-amyloid PET imaging in cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. CNS drugs 2015-07

Intravenous (18)F-labelled florbetaben ([(18)F]florbetaben) [Neuraceq™] is a polyethylene glycol stilbene derivative that is approved in the USA, EU and South Korea for positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of the brain. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Memantine ER/Donepezil: A Review in Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. CNS drugs 2015-11

A once-daily, fixed-dose combination of memantine extended-release (ER)/donepezil 28/10 mg (Namzaric™) is available in the USA for patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) on stable memantine and donepezil therapy. 2 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