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 use of donepezil produced statistically significant improvements in ADAS-cog, CIBIC plus, and Mini-Mental State Examination scores, relative to placebo. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 468 Evidence: high

Mechanism of amyloid removal in patients with Alzheimer disease treated with gantenerumab

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2011-10-10

Gantenerumab treatment resulted in a dose-dependent reduction in brain amyloid level, possibly through an effector cell-mediated mechanism of action. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Etanercept in Alzheimer disease: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Neurology 2015-05-01

This study showed that subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg/wk) was well tolerated in this small group of patients with Alzheimer disease dementia, but a larger more heterogeneous group needs to be tested before recommending its use for broader groups of patients. 4 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: high

There was no difference in the age (mean [SD], 74.17 [7.96] years), sex (12 women [67%]), or baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score (mean [SD], 19.39 [3.24]) between the crossover (n = 9) and open-label groups (n = 9). 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

In this review of 56 RCTs for AD involving 39 575 participants, 23 348 women (59.0%) were included. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 100 Evidence: high

Goals-of-care documentation during the intervention phase occurred among 3744 of 6023 patients (62.2%) compared with 2396 of 4779 patients (50.1%) in the usual care phase (P Conclusions and relevance In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial of older adults, a GOC video intervention delivered by PCEs resulted in higher rates of GOC documentation compared with usual care, including among Black or African American individuals, Hispanic or Latino individuals, non-English speakers, and people living with Alzheimer disease and related dementias. 3 key findings →

Participants: 802 Evidence: high

Low-Dose Lithium for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2026-04-01

Among 80 participants (mean [SD] age, lithium: 72.93 [8.77] years; placebo: 71.22 [6.47] years; 56% female), none of the 6 coprimary outcomes met the prespecified significance threshold. 2 key findings →

Participants: 170 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

Dementia risk after traumatic brain injury vs nonbrain trauma: the role of age and severity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2014-12-01

Of these, 4361 (8.4%) developed dementia compared with 6610 patients with NTT (5.9%) (P Conclusions and relevance Among patients evaluated in the ED or inpatient settings, those with moderate to severe TBI at 55 years or older or mild TBI at 65 years or older had an increased risk of developing dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 164,661 Evidence: moderate

Adherence to the Life Simple 7 ideal cardiovascular health recommendations in midlife was associated with a lower risk of dementia later in life. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 7,899 Evidence: moderate

Compared with the reference standard for diagnosing delirium, 2 study nurses using the CAM-ICU had sensitivities of 100% and 93%, specificities of 98% and 100%, and high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.99). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 111 Evidence: moderate

As with incidences, HRs were higher in patients who had more severe COVID-19 (eg, those admitted to ITU compared with those who were not: 1·58, 1·50-1·67, for any diagnosis; 2·87, 2·45-3·35, for any first diagnosis). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 379 Evidence: moderate

Although preliminary, our findings have implications for clinical services, and prospective cohort studies are warranted. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 62 Evidence: moderate

The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best-known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Reductions in cerebral glucose metabolic rate (CMRglu) as measured by fludeoxyglucose F 18-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in parietotemporal, frontal, and cingulate cortices are associated with increased AD risk and can be observed years before dementia onset. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

We found that the mass spectrometry-based p-tau217 (p-tau217WashU) exhibited significantly better performance than all other plasma p-tau biomarkers when detecting abnormal Aβ status [area under curve (AUC) = 0.947; Pdiff 0.09), but higher compared with AUC of p-tau231UGOT, p-tau181Lilly, p-tau181UGOT, p-tau181Fuji and p-tau181Splex (AUCrange 0.642-0.813; Pdiff ≤ 0.029). 5 key findings →

Participants: 135 Evidence: low

A mean value of 85.7% was achieved for overall diagnostic accuracy, 82.4% for positive predictive value, and 87.5% for negative predictive value. 2 key findings →

Participants: 94 Evidence: low

Inflammatory mechanisms have been implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and might be mediated via the COX-2 enzyme. 3 key findings →

Participants: 725 Evidence: high

Among community-living dyads, a nonpharmacologic biobehavioral environmental intervention compared with control resulted in better outcomes for COPE dyads at 4 months. 3 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