alzhub.org
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.

Research

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 8,326–8,350 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 334 of 1086) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,658 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Procedural Framework to Facilitate Hospital-Based Informed Consent for Dementia Research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2018-09-24

Improving quality and delivery of care for people with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) requires a comprehensive research agenda that encompasses the entire care continuum. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Improving Recovery and Outcomes Every Day after the ICU (IMPROVE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Trials 2018-03-27

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

L-deprenyl in the treatment of mild dementia of the Alzheimer type: preliminary results

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1993-04-01

L-deprenyl did not have a measurable impact on behavior or cognitive function over a 2-month period in this group of subjects with mild DAT. 1 key finding →

Participants: 39 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Rivastigmine treatment for the prevention of electroconvulsive therapy-induced memory deficits in patients with schizophrenia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Clinical neuropharmacology 2012-07-01

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective strategy in some treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Effects of Risperidone and Galantamine Treatment on Alzheimer's Disease Biomarker Levels in Cerebrospinal Fluid

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2017-01-01

Our results suggest that risperidone may affect the CSF profile of AD biomarkers indicating more amyloid pathology. 5 key findings →

Participants: 44 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Rationale and design of a multicenter, phase 2 clinical trial to investigate the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine SaiLuoTong in vascular dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association 2014-10-05

The rigorous methodology of the study will hopefully move forward the scientific evaluation of traditional Chinese medicine in treatment of VaD. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 372 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Effects of rivastigmine transdermal patch and capsule on aspects of clinical global impression of change in Alzheimer's disease: a retrospective analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders 2010-05-21

Cognitive alterations show greatest correlation with total CGIC. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Systematic review of atorvastatin for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neural regeneration research 2012-06-01

Two randomized controlled trials were included, one was scale A, and the other was scale B. The rates of abnormal liver function, withdrawal from treatment, and withdrawal due to adverse effects were higher in the treatment group (OR = 7.86, 95%CI: 2.50-24.69; OR = 4.70, 95%CI: 2.61-8.44; and OR = 5.47, 95%CI: 3.01-9.94; respectively) compared with the placebo group. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 710 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Summary of the evidence on modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and dementia: A population-based perspective

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2015-06-01

An estimated 47 million people worldwide are living with dementia in 2015, and this number is projected to triple by 2050. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Pathways linking late-life depression to persistent cognitive impairment and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience 2008-01-01

There is a strong association between late-life depression, cognitive impairment, cerebrovascular disease, and poor cognitive outcomes, including progressive dementia, especially Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Your Robot Therapist Will See You Now: Ethical Implications of Embodied Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry, Psychology, and Psychotherapy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of medical Internet research 2019-05-09

From an ethical perspective, important benefits of embodied AI applications in mental health include new modes of treatment, opportunities to engage hard-to-reach populations, better patient response, and freeing up time for physicians. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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