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.

Among postmenopausal women aged 65 years or older, estrogen plus progestin did not improve cognitive function when compared with placebo. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,145 Evidence: high

During a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, dementia was documented in 193 (6.3%) of the 3051 randomized participants in the actively treated group and 217 (7.1%) of the 3054 randomized participants in the placebo group (relative risk reduction, 12% [95% confidence interval, -8% to 28%]; P =.2). 4 key findings →

Participants: 6,105 Evidence: high

These data demonstrate that donepezil is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for VaD and show it may have an important place in the management of this condition. 5 key findings →

Participants: 603 Evidence: high

Cholinergic dysfunction is also associated with neuropsychiatric and functional deficits, but results from randomized controlled trials of cholinesterase inhibitors are conflicting. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 29 Evidence: high

Exercise plus behavioral management in patients with Alzheimer disease: a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. JAMA 2003-10-01

Exercise training for patients with Alzheimer disease combined with teaching caregivers how to manage behavioral problems may help decrease the frailty and behavioral impairment that are often prevalent in patients with Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Treatment with ChEIs results in a modest but significant therapeutic effect and modestly but significantly higher rates of adverse events and discontinuation of treatment. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,159 Evidence: high

A recent Cochrane review of reality orientation therapy identified the need for large, well-designed, multi-centre trials. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 201 Evidence: high

The mean (SD) time between the date of randomization into WHI and the last Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MSE) for all WHIMS participants was 4.05 (1.19) years. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,229 Evidence: high

Subject to the usual caveats inherent in studies with small sample size, this pilot phase 2 study supports further investigation of this novel treatment strategy using a metal-protein-attenuating compound. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

Memantine for dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2003-01-01

Main results Effect of memantine in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: analysis of the change from baseline at 28 weeks gave statistically significant results in favour of memantine for 20 mg/day on cognition (MD: 6.1. 95% CI 2.99 to 9.21, P=0.0001) activities of daily living (MD 2.10, 95% CI 0.46 to 3.74, p=0.01) and in the global clinical impression of change measured by the CIBIC-Plus at 28 weeks (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.02, p=0.04), in all cases the analysis was the ITT-LOCF population (Reisberg 2000). 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Multifactorial intervention was not effective in preventing falls in older people with cognitive impairment and dementia presenting to the accident and emergency department after a fall. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

These preliminary results suggest that donepezil may have a potentially protective effect in Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 67 Evidence: high

Antibodies against beta-amyloid slow cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Neuron 2003-05-01

To test whether antibodies against beta-amyloid are effective in slowing progression of Alzheimer's disease, we assessed cognitive functions in 30 patients who received a prime and a booster immunization of aggregated Abeta(42) over a 1 year period in a placebo-controlled, randomized trial. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high

Prospective study of alcohol consumption and risk of dementia in older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA 2003-03-01

Compared with abstention, consumption of 1 to 6 drinks weekly is associated with a lower risk of incident dementia among older adults. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,888 Evidence: moderate

Leisure activities and the risk of dementia in the elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2003-06-01

Participation in leisure activities is associated with a reduced risk of dementia, even after adjustment for base-line cognitive status and after the exclusion of subjects with possible preclinical dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 469 Evidence: moderate

Use of donepezil by AD patients resulted in significant delays in NHP. 2 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,115 Evidence: high

In elderly hypertensive patients, a slightly more effective blood pressure reduction during candesartan-based therapy, compared with control therapy, was associated with a modest, statistically non-significant, reduction in major cardiovascular events and with a marked reduction in non-fatal stroke. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 4,964 Evidence: high

The trial was completed by 67% of patients in the placebo group and 73% of patients in the risperidone group. 3 key findings →

Participants: 345 Evidence: high

Prevalence and characteristics of dementia in Parkinson disease: an 8-year prospective study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2003-03-01

More than three quarters of this representative PD cohort developed dementia during the 8-year study period. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 224 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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