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.

Our findings indicate that quantitative gait measures predict future risk of cognitive decline and dementia in initially non-demented older adults. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 427 Evidence: moderate

Pathological correlates of dementia in a longitudinal, population-based sample of aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2007-10-01

Previously published community- or population-based studies of brain aging and dementia with autopsy were restricted to a single sex, a single ethnic group, Roman Catholic clergy, or focused pathological assessments. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 221 Evidence: moderate

REM sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) is a parasomnia characterized by the loss of normal skeletal muscle atonia during REM sleep with prominent motor activity accompanying dreaming. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Baseline predictors of rates of hippocampal atrophy in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2007-10-01

Rates of hippocampal atrophy (%/year) were 0.0 +/- 0.8 in the absent, 1.7 +/- 0.4 in the moderate, and 3.6 +/- 1.0 in the severe (mean +/- SD) tertile. 2 key findings →

Participants: 323 Evidence: moderate

In elderly persons, antipsychotic drugs are clinically prescribed off-label for a number of disorders outside of their Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Counseling and support preserved SRH in vulnerable caregivers. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

There were no differences in measures of effectiveness between initiation of active treatments or placebo (which represented watchful waiting) but the placebo group had significantly lower health care costs. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 421 Evidence: high

This study is the first to show that, 10 years before the clinical diagnosis of dementia, subjects who later developed dementia performed worse in complex activities of daily living, which may constitute an early marker of the disease. 2 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 104 Evidence: moderate

Hippocampal and entorhinal atrophy in mild cognitive impairment: prediction of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2007-03-01

Hippocampal and entorhinal cortex volumes were each largest in controls, intermediate in MCI nonconverters, and smallest in MCI converters to AD (37 of 139 patients converted to AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 139 Evidence: low

Effects of caregiving on physical health have received less theoretical and empirical attention than effects on psychological health. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Cognitive training for persons with mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. International psychogeriatrics 2007-10-25

Recent randomized control trials and meta-analyses of experimental studies indicate positive effects of non-pharmacological cognitive training on the cognitive function of healthy older adults. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

These early data in healthy subjects provide encouragement to consider development of AZD3480 as a novel agent for the treatment of cognitive decline in the elderly, including age-associated memory impairment and/or dementia of the Alzheimer's type. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2007-08-01

The NINCDS-ADRDA and the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are the prevailing diagnostic standards in research; however, they have now fallen behind the unprecedented growth of scientific knowledge. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Distinguishing Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) currently relies on a clinical history and examination, but positron emission tomography with [(18)F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) shows different patterns of hypometabolism in these disorders that might aid differential diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Participants: 31 Evidence: low

Education delays accelerated decline on a memory test in persons who develop dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2007-10-01

As predicted by the cognitive reserve hypothesis, higher education delays the onset of accelerated cognitive decline; once it begins it is more rapid in persons with more education. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 117 Evidence: moderate

Adjusted estimates of MTA were associated with significantly increased risk of developing dementia within 3 years, suggesting that obtaining a magnetic resonance image during the evaluation of MCI may offer additional independent information about the risk of progression to dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 190 Evidence: low

MCI occurs often in this elderly Italian cohort and is associated with greater risk of AD, but only when the impairment involves the memory domain. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,016 Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal MRI findings from the vitamin E and donepezil treatment study for MCI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2007-04-23

The vitamin E and donepezil trial for the treatment of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) was conducted at 69 centers in North America; 24 centers participated in an MRI sub study. 2 key findings →

Participants: 131 Evidence: low

From a longitudinal study of normal (Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR] = 0; n = 77) and mildly impaired (CDR = 0.5; n = 167) participants with 5 or more annual clinical assessments, baseline level of cognitive impairment in daily life was graded using CDR sum of boxes (CDR-SB) and level of cognitive performance impairment was graded using neuropsychological test scores. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 77 Evidence: moderate

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a common, fatal motor neuron disorder with no effective treatment. 4 key findings →

Participants: 111 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