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.

Meta-analysis of the Hachinski Ischemic Score in pathologically verified dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. Neurology 1997-10-01

Our objectives were to investigate the utility of the Hachinski Ischemic Score (HIS) in differentiating patients with pathologically verified Alzheimer's disease (AD), multi-infarct dementia (MID), and "mixed" (AD plus cerebrovascular disease) dementia, and to identify the specific items of the HIS that best discriminate those dementia subtypes. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 312 Evidence: high

EGb was safe and appears capable of stabilizing and, in a substantial number of cases, improving the cognitive performance and the social functioning of demented patients for 6 months to 1 year. 5 key findings →

Participants: 309 Evidence: high

No difference was seen in Clinical Global Impression scores between patients receiving placebo and those receiving linopirdine (n = 189). 4 key findings →

Participants: 382 Evidence: high

Furthermore, the dramatic and favorable effects on disturbing behaviors in AD suggest a novel approach for treatment of noncognitive symptoms. 1 key finding →

Participants: 343 Evidence: high

Among Caucasian subjects from clinic- or autopsy-based studies, the risk of AD was significantly increased for people with genotypes epsilon2/epsilon4 (OR=2.6, 95% CI=1.6-4.0), epsilon3/epsilon4 (OR=3.2, 95% CI=2.8-3.8), and epsilon4/epsilon4 (OR=14.9, 95% CI= 10.8-20.6); whereas, the ORs were decreased for people with genotypes epsilon2/epsilon2 (OR=0.6, 95% CI=0.2-2.0) and epsilon2/epsilon3 (OR=0.6, 95% CI=0.5-0.8). 2 key findings →

Participants: 5,930 Evidence: low

We estimated the remaining lifetime risks of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia from all causes, based on data from longitudinal population studies. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 198 Evidence: moderate

All indicators of atherosclerosis were associated with dementia (odds ratios ranging from 1.3 to 1.9) and its major subtypes Alzheimer's disease (odds ratios 1.3-1.8) and vascular dementia (odds ratios 1.9-3.2). 4 key findings →

Participants: 284 Evidence: low

The current study is a controlled clinical investigation of two nonpharmacological treatments of depression in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In patients with moderately severe impairment from Alzheimer's disease, treatment with selegiline or alpha-tocopherol slows the progression of disease.

Neuronal loss correlates with but exceeds neurofibrillary tangles in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 1997-01-01

To assess the relationship between dementia, neuronal loss, and neuropathological findings in Alzheimer's disease (AD), we counted the number of neurons, senile plaques, and neurofibrillary tangles in a high-order association cortex. 1 key finding →

Participants: 34 Evidence: low

Metabolic reduction in the posterior cingulate cortex in very early Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Annals of neurology 1997-07-01

This study investigated cerebral glucose metabolism in very early Alzheimer's disease, before a clinical diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's disease is possible, using [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. 3 key findings →

Participants: 66 Evidence: low

(1) The incidence of dementia increases with age, even in the oldest age groups; (2) women have a higher risk of developing dementia than men, especially at very old ages; (3) this pattern is mainly due to the age and gender distribution of Alzheimer's disease, rather than vascular dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,473 Evidence: moderate

Previous reports have suggested that estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) in women may exert a protective effect on their risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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