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.

The emphasis on benefits, rather than losses and difficulties, provides a new dimension to the way interventions for caregivers can be conceptualized and delivered. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Aβ40 levels changed less for the simvastatin group (not statistically significant). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 21 Evidence: high

Preclinical evidence in transgenic models of Alzheimer's disease suggests that liraglutide exerts neuroprotective effects by reducing amyloid oligomers, normalising synaptic plasticity and cerebral glucose uptake, and increasing the proliferation of neuronal progenitor cells. 4 key findings →

Participants: 206 Evidence: high

A randomised controlled trial of physical activity and cognitive training in older adults: the PhABHeaD study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Trials 2026-05-07

If a substantial synergetic effect is detected, it may lead to the use of more widespread concurrent physical and cognitive training and the potential development of methods to make concurrent training practical. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 126 Evidence: high

Moreover, physical activity in the elderly is associated with a decreased risk of mortality, of common chronic illnesses (i.e. cardiovascular disease or osteoarthritis) and of institutionalization as well as with a delay in functional decline. 5 key findings →

Participants: 240 Evidence: high

This study provides data on whether tailored nutritional care is beneficial to home-dwelling AD patients and their spouses. 5 key findings →

Participants: 202 Evidence: high

The study will provide evidence for evaluating and understanding the role of electroacupuncture in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: high

SYGRAVA is the first randomized trial to determine whether programmable ASDs reduce complications of drainage compared to fixed ASDs in patients with iNPH. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 306 Evidence: high

The outcomes of the present study aim to elucidate the significance of the PDE4 inhibition mechanism as a prospective therapeutic target for enhancing cognitive function in individuals with (a)MCI and mild AD dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

This study is the first clinical trial to examine the efficacy of combined physical and cognitive exercise on cognitive function in older ICU survivors with delirium. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The results of this proof-of-principle study will be used to assess the potential of target engagement of minocycline for CAA. 1 key finding →

Participants: 60 Evidence: high

Some degree of cognitive decline after surgery occurs in as many as one quarter of elderly surgical patients, and this decline is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high

This is the first study to investigate the effect of MAKSCog, an individualised CCT, specifically developed for people with different subtypes of MCI. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Multiphase optimization of a multicomponent intervention for informal dementia caregivers: a study protocol

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Trials 2023-12-05

This is the first study adopting the multiphase optimisation strategy to identify the most active and engaging components of a psychological intervention for caregivers of patients with dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

COG-T CHD is the first clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of computer-based cognitive training in patients with coronary heart disease, filling an important gap in the treatment evidence for cognitive digital therapy. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

↑ 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