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.

No significant difference was seen in cognitive and functional decline between early and delayed treatment groups. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 85 Evidence: high

There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline age, sex, illiteracy, years of education, and scores on the K-MMSE, CDR, SNSB-II, and K-MBI. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Systematic cognitive training had no effect on global cognition or HRQoL in community-living persons with mild to moderate dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 147 Evidence: high

This study (registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018085967) compares the efficacy (i.e. pro-cognitive effects) and acceptability of antidiabetic agents for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,855 Evidence: high

The SYNERGIC Trial will establish the efficacy and feasibility of a multimodal intervention to improve cognitive performance and mobility outcomes in MCI. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Seventeen studies with cognitively impaired Parkinson's disease patients were included consisting of 222 Parkinson's disease patients with mild cognitive impairment, 68 patients with Parkinson's disease dementia, 289 cognitively unimpaired Parkinson's disease patients and 353 healthy controls. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 68 Evidence: high

ABBY: A phase 2 randomized trial of crenezumab in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Neurology 2018-04-25

Although prespecified criteria for testing treatment effects were not met, these data suggest a potential treatment effect in patients with mild AD treated with high-dose crenezumab. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 184 Evidence: high

Nilvadipine in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease: A randomised controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. PLoS medicine 2018-09-24

This study reports the findings of the first large-scale Phase III investigator-driven clinical trial to slow the rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease with a dihydropyridine (DHP) calcium channel blocker, nilvadipine. 4 key findings →

Participants: 577 Evidence: high

If results from this study show benefits for cognition at trial completion, CCT programs, alone or in combination with walking, might be a strategy to promote healthy cognitive aging in older adults. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

These findings indicate that a 4-week simultaneous memory training and aerobic exercise program is sufficient to improve memory, attention, and reasoning abilities in older adults. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

The meta-analyses revealed structural brain abnormalities associated with PTSD and trauma and suggest that global brain volume reductions distinguish PTSD from major depression. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 113 Evidence: high

Overall, we found that probiotic and selenium co-supplementation for 12 weeks to patients with AD improved cognitive function and some metabolic profiles. 5 key findings →

Participants: 27 Evidence: high

It has been reported that social engagement may be associated with dementia risk. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 31 Evidence: moderate

Five RCTs of the Mediterranean diet and cognition have been published to date. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,888 Evidence: high

The results from utilization of the UDS highlight the possibility for numerous research institutions to successfully collaborate, produce, and use standardized data collection instruments for over a decade. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 4,820 Evidence: moderate

We found that distinct sphingolipid species including sphingomyelin (SM) with acyl residue sums C16:0, C18:1, and C16:1 (SM C16:0, SM C18:1, SM C16:1) and hydroxysphingomyelin with acyl residue sum C14:1 (SM (OH) C14:1) were consistently associated with severity of AD pathology at autopsy and AD progression across prodromal and preclinical stages. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 44 Evidence: moderate

CSF biomarkers of neuroinflammation and cerebrovascular dysfunction in early Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Neurology 2018-07-27

Neuroinflammation and cerebrovascular dysfunction are early events occurring already at presymptomatic stages of AD and contribute to disease progression. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 508 Evidence: moderate

It has been suggested that various different vitamin and mineral supplements might be useful in maintaining cognitive function and delaying the onset of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 516 Evidence: high

Little is known on how risk factors of younger cohorts will play out in the future burden of multi-morbidity (two or more concurrent long-term conditions). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 303,589 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
  • 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