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.

We investigated the performance of FDG PET using an automated procedure for discrimination between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and controls, and studied the influence of demographic and technical factors. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Several studies have shown that pharmacological and cognitive treatments for Alzheimers's disease improve cognitive function for short periods, but fewer studies have evaluated the efficacy of those treatments for longer (2-year) periods. 3 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is the second most prevalent dementia after Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In vivo Prevalence of Alzheimer Biomarkers in Dementia with Lewy Bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders 2019-07-16

Neuropathological studies indicate concomitant Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology in patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). 4 key findings →

Participants: 38 Evidence: low

Internal consistency of the ACE-III was strong (McDonald's ω = 0.889). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,265 Evidence: low

These findings highlight the importance of tailoring interventions to caregiver characteristics and outcome type. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: moderate

Prior work on the link between blood-based biomarkers and cognitive status has largely been based on dichotomous classifications rather than detailed neuropsychological functioning. 1 key finding →

Participants: 395 Evidence: low

The AD subjects showed positive correlations between CSF-T-tau and CSF-P-tau versus CSF-Mn (r(s) = 0.22, p = 0.004; r(s) = 0.18, p = 0.021). 4 key findings →

Participants: 264 Evidence: low

Effects of cholinergic drugs and cognitive training on dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders 2004-04-06

A study was performed on patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in order to evaluate the efficacy of a combined treatment (donepezil plus cognitive training) in both cognitive processes and affective states. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

To evaluate whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of white matter changes in Alzheimer's disease either under- or overestimates the findings on neuropathology. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

These measures offer a sensitive method of assessing spontaneous speech output in AD, and they discriminate well between people with AD and healthy older adults. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

To compare the diagnostic accuracies of the Revised Hasegawa Dementia Scale (HDS-R) and Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) for Alzheimer's diseases (AD), we administered them simultaneously to 82 AD patients and 82 age- and sex-matched nondemented control subjects. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

As disease-modifying therapies become available for Alzheimer's disease (AD), detection of AD in early stages of illness (mild cognitive impairment [MCI], early dementia) becomes increasingly important. 4 key findings →

Participants: 185 Evidence: moderate

While the DLB patients scored well and did not differ from the control and AD groups in terms of functional activity and connectivity during the task conditions, they showed decreased functional connectivity in visuoperceptual regions during the resting state condition, along with a temporal impairment of the default-mode network activity. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In this study, we aimed to compare cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of total tau (t-tau), phosphorylated tau (p-tau(181)) and positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) in the differential diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) under clinical conditions. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 24 Evidence: low

The burden of dementia will continue to rise globally, particularly in developing countries, many of which lie in the Asia-Pacific region. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Older people with cognitive impairment are at increased risk of falls; however, fall prevention strategies have limited success in this population. 4 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

As dementia is a fast-growing health care problem, it is becoming an increasingly urgent need to provide an early diagnosis in order to offer patients the best medical treatment and care. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

36% of practitioners reported not having used therapies for medical conditions other than dementia in patients with AD for reasons of limited compliance in these patients. 5 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.

1,034 records (3.6% 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