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.

Compared with placebo, the amino acid mixture did not improve NPI-12, MMSE, TMT-A and B or CDR scores. 4 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: high

Exogenous low dose melatonin administered nightly to elderly patients admitted to acute care may represent a potential protective agent against delirium. 3 key findings →

Participants: 145 Evidence: high

Patients treated with galantamine 24 mg/day had a significantly better outcome than placebo on ADAS-cog; the treatment difference was 3 points on the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis ( p = 0.01) and 4.2 points on per protocol analysis ( p = 0.001). 4 key findings →

Participants: 285 Evidence: high

The experimental paradigm was feasible and acceptable. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 95 Evidence: high

Cognitive training was effective in enhancing the overall cognitive functioning of less educated older adults with subjective memory complaints. 2 key findings →

Participants: 111 Evidence: high

The target dose of 10 cm2 rivastigmine patch provides efficacy similar to the highest doses of capsules with a superior tolerability profile. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Participants allocated to CR received 10 weekly sessions over 3 months and four maintenance sessions over 6 months. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 475 Evidence: high

Our results corroborate the positive effect of pb-CT and its maintenance primarily on memory in HE and MCI participants that did not seem to be potentiated by RT. 5 key findings →

Participants: 348 Evidence: high

ICT-based cognitive intervention had a positive effect on cognitive function, depression, and quality of life in older adults with MCI or mild dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Depression, anxiety, and apathy symptoms are highly prevalent across dementia stages. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,897 Evidence: high

Lifestyle for Brain Health (LIBRA) may help in identifying and monitoring risk status in dementia-prevention programmes, by targeting modifiable, lifestyle-related risk factors. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 949 Evidence: high

The mean plasma total homocysteine was 30% lower in those treated with B vitamins relative to placebo. 3 key findings →

Participants: 133 Evidence: low

The results of this trial support the hypothesis that memantine treatment leads to functional improvement and reduces care dependence in severely demented patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 166 Evidence: low

Dementia and caregiver burden: A three-year longitudinal study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2019-12-10

High levels of caregiver burden are present in a large proportion of caregivers of people with dementia and this increases over time for those without services. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 720 Evidence: moderate

A re-examination of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) cutoff scores

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2017-07-21

A MoCA cutoff score of 23, rather than the initially recommended score of 26, lowers the false positive rate and shows overall better diagnostic accuracy. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

This study underscores the substantial prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among informal carers of individuals with dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 11,134 Evidence: moderate

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is an increasingly used screening tool for cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 710 Evidence: moderate

Epidemiological and animal studies have suggested that dietary fish or fish oil rich in omega-3 fatty acids (omega3), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), may have effects in psychiatric and behavioral symptoms in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Clinicians treating people with a hip fracture should be vigilant towards post-operative delirium if their patients are older, have pre-existing cognitive impairment and poorer overall general health. 4 key findings →

Participants: 6,704 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