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

Showing 201–225 of 2,524 studies marked Peer-reviewed scoring ≥ 67 out of 100 (page 9 of 101) · 29,380 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.

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.

A 1-year, randomized, placebo-controlled study of donepezil in patients with mild to moderate AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 81 out of 100. Neurology 2001-08-01

As the first 1-year, multinational, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of a cholinesterase inhibitor in AD, these data support donepezil as a well tolerated and effective long-term treatment for patients with AD, with benefits over placebo on global assessment, cognition, and ADL. 3 key findings →

Participants: 286 Evidence: high

Due to the small number of studies and heterogeneity in study design and outcomes, the association between DNA methylation age and age-related disease and longevity is inconclusive. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 41,607 Evidence: high

Immunotherapeutics targeting amyloid-β (Aβ) have had mixed results in clinical trials. 3 key findings →

Participants: 5,554 Evidence: high

The efficacy and safety of anti-amyloid mAbs in AD may differ based on patients' demographic and genetic factors. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 5,633 Evidence: high

ACHIEVE-P sets the stage for the full-scale ACHIEVE trial (N = 850, recruitment beginning November 2017), the first randomized trial to determine efficacy of a best practices hearing (vs. successful aging) intervention on reducing cognitive decline in older adults with HL. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 850 Evidence: high

Regarding exposures to air pollution, there was convincing (class I) evidence for the association between long-term exposure to solvents and a higher incidence of dementia or cognitive impairment (odds ratio, OR=1.139), and highly suggestive (class II) evidence for the association between long-term exposure to some pollutants and higher risk for cognitive disorders (higher incidence of dementia with high vs. low levels of carbon monoxide, CO: OR=1.587; higher incidence of vascular dementia per 1 μg/m 3 increase of nitrogen oxides, NO x : hazard ratio, HR=1.004). 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 195 Evidence: high

A total of 210 participants were enrolled and 82% completed 26 weeks of treatment. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 210 Evidence: high

Diabetes in Older Adults: A Consensus Report

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 81 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2012-10-25

More than 25% of the U.S. population aged ≥ 65 years has diabetes mellitus (hereafter referred to as diabetes),1 and the aging of the overall population is a significant driver of the diabetes epidemic. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high

Plasma Aβ40 values might not distinguish between PET (+) and PET (-) people. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,047 Evidence: high

To assess for potential differences in cognitive test scoring when using a remote platform, and where a remote screener was compared to the equivalent face-to-face test. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,075 Evidence: high

This study has the potential to provide the first evidence of the effectiveness of information communication technology and Internet of Things in incident dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,749 Evidence: high

Our preliminary findings suggest that web-based cognitive training programs may benefit African Americans with MCI at least as much as Caucasians, and highlight the need to further study underrepresented minorities in AD prevention trials. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 105 Evidence: high

Physical Activity and Cognitive Decline Among Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 80 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-02-05

In this meta-analysis of the association of physical activity with cognitive decline, physical activity was associated with better late-life cognition, but the association was weak. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 341,471 Evidence: moderate

Blood pressure lowering and prevention of dementia: an individual patient data meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 80 out of 100. European Heart Journal 2022-12-21

The first single-stage individual patient data meta-analysis from randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials provides evidence to support benefits of antihypertensive treatment in late-mid and later life to lower the risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 28,008 Evidence: high

An unresolved question for the understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology is why a significant percentage of amyloid-β (Aβ)-positive cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals do not develop detectable downstream tau pathology and, consequently, clinical deterioration. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,016 Evidence: moderate

In this study of adults with subjective memory impairment, a 6-month program of physical activity provided a modest improvement in cognition over an 18-month follow-up period. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 170 Evidence: high

Tarenflurbil did not slow cognitive decline or the loss of activities of daily living in patients with mild AD. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,684 Evidence: high

We identified 22 hospital-based and eight population-based eligible cohorts (7511 patients) described in 73 papers. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 7,511 Evidence: high

During the CEE plus MPA intervention phase, the numbers of CHD cases were 196 for CEE plus MPA vs 159 for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.45) and 206 vs 155, respectively, for invasive breast cancer (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.01-1.53). 3 key findings →

Participants: 8,506 Evidence: low

The global prevalence of MCI among community dwellers is over 15% and is affected by age, gender, education level and region of study sites. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 242,804 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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.

1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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