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.

Faster alleviation of delirium and improved cognition justify good, comprehensive geriatric care for these patients although treatment produced no significant improvements in hard endpoints of prognosis. 4 key findings →

Participants: 87 Evidence: high

We collected a total of 29 prospective studies for the systematic literature review and meta-analysis. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 29 Evidence: high

In this 10-week, double-blind, fixed-dose study, elderly institutionalized patients with dementia and agitation were randomized (3:3:2) to quetiapine 200mg/day, 100mg/day, or placebo. 2 key findings →

Participants: 117 Evidence: high

A lower proportion of patients with cancer had palliative care initiated in the home (16 088 [14.5%]) compared with patients with chronic organ failure (6904 [32.8%]; absolute difference, -18.3%) or dementia (3922 [27.9%]; absolute difference, -13.4%). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 709 Evidence: moderate

These findings highlight the potential benefits of palliative care in some non-cancer illnesses. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,936 Evidence: moderate

The large number of well-characterized candidate facilities enabled several unique design features including stratification on historical hospitalization rates, randomization prior to recruitment, and 2:1 control to intervention facilities ratio. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 119 Evidence: high

This systematic review highlighted the lack of consensus regarding referral criteria for palliative care in patients with dementia and the need to identify timely triggers to standardize referral. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 43 Evidence: high

This will be vital in moving to a phase III trial that is pragmatic and feasible for these complex patients within the NHS. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high

Average volumetric changes are close to the limit of detection by MRI methods. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,424 Evidence: high

Over the last decade a significant number of studies have reported smaller hippocampal volume in individuals with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) relative to control groups, and in some cases hemispheric asymmetries in this effect have been noted. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 13 Evidence: high

Postmenopausal hormone therapy and regional brain volumes: the WHIMS-MRI Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Neurology 2009-01-01

Conjugated equine estrogens with or without MPA are associated with greater brain atrophy among women aged 65 years and older; however, the adverse effects are most evident in women experiencing cognitive deficits before initiating hormone therapy. 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

APOE ɛ4 was associated with atrophic hippocampal volume in MRI markers, increased cerebral amyloid deposition and cerebral hypometabolism. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,628 Evidence: high

Analysis of error types provides useful information about the stages and processes involved in normal and aphasic word production. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 64 Evidence: high

Progression of brain atrophy and cognitive decline in diabetes mellitus: a 3-year follow-up

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Neurology 2010-09-01

Our data show that elderly patients with DM without dementia have accelerated progression of brain atrophy with significant consequences in cognition compared to subjects without DM. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 89 Evidence: high

Most care staff for long-term care residents with dementia experience low or moderate burnout levels. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 598 Evidence: high

Diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease using plasma biomarkers adjusted to clinical probability

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Nature aging 2024-11-12

Recently approved anti-amyloid immunotherapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) require evidence of amyloid-β pathology from positron emission tomography (PET) or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) before initiating treatment. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,896 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive-motor dual-task training was more beneficial than single-task training alone in improving broader domains of cognitive functions of elderly persons, and the improvement was not directly due to modulating Aβ metabolism. 4 key findings →

Participants: 27 Evidence: high

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) aims to validate biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 20,000 Evidence: moderate

Bilingualism has been linked to improved executive function and delayed onset of dementia, but it is unknown whether similar benefits can be obtained later in life through deliberate intervention. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 76 Evidence: high

The APOE ε4 allele remains the strongest genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer's disease and the APOE ε2 allele the strongest genetic protective factor after multiple large scale genome-wide association studies and genome-wide association meta-analyses. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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