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.

Two phase 3 trials of bapineuzumab in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 85 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2014-01-01

Bapineuzumab did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with Alzheimer's disease, despite treatment differences in biomarkers observed in APOE ε4 carriers. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,090 Evidence: high

TREM2 variants in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 85 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2012-11-14

Homozygous loss-of-function mutations in TREM2, encoding the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 protein, have previously been associated with an autosomal recessive form of early-onset dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,092 Evidence: high

Randomized Trial of Verubecestat for Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 82 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2018-05-01

Verubecestat did not reduce cognitive or functional decline in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease and was associated with treatment-related adverse events. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,958 Evidence: high

Effect of Aspirin on Cardiovascular Events and Bleeding in the Healthy Elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 81 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2018-09-16

After a median of 4.7 years of follow-up, the rate of cardiovascular disease was 10.7 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 11.3 events per 1000 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.08). 4 key findings →

Participants: 19,114 Evidence: low

Two Phase 3 Trials of Gantenerumab in Early Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 81 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2023-11-01

Among persons with early Alzheimer's disease, the use of gantenerumab led to a lower amyloid plaque burden than placebo at 116 weeks but was not associated with slower clinical decline. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 980 Evidence: low

Donanemab in Early Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2021-03-13

In patients with early Alzheimer's disease, donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 257 Evidence: low

Trial of Solanezumab in Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2023-07-17

Solanezumab, which targets monomeric amyloid in persons with elevated brain amyloid levels, did not slow cognitive decline as compared with placebo over a period of 240 weeks in persons with preclinical Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,169 Evidence: low

Effect of Aspirin on All-Cause Mortality in the Healthy Elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2018-09-16

Higher all-cause mortality was observed among apparently healthy older adults who received daily aspirin than among those who received placebo and was attributed primarily to cancer-related death. 3 key findings →

Participants: 19,114 Evidence: low

Rivastigmine for dementia associated with Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2004-12-01

The outcomes were better among patients treated with rivastigmine than among those who received placebo; however, the differences between these two groups were moderate and similar to those reported in trials of rivastigmine for Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 541 Evidence: low

However, the advisory did not apply to conventional antipsychotic medications; the risk of death with these older agents is not known. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 22,890 Evidence: moderate

Leisure activities and the risk of dementia in the elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2003-06-01

Participation in leisure activities is associated with a reduced risk of dementia, even after adjustment for base-line cognitive status and after the exclusion of subjects with possible preclinical dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 469 Evidence: moderate

We treated 17 patients who had moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease with oral tetrahydroaminoacridine (THA), a centrally active anticholinesterase, in a three-phase study. 3 key findings →

Participants: 17 Evidence: low

Biomarker Changes during 20 Years Preceding Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2024-02-01

In this study involving Chinese participants during the 20 years preceding clinical diagnosis of sporadic Alzheimer's disease, we observed the time courses of CSF biomarkers, the times before diagnosis at which they diverged from the biomarkers from a matched group of participants who remained cognitively normal, and the temporal order in which the biomarkers became abnormal. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 648 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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events