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.

Adherence to Mediterranean diet and health status: meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 83 out of 100. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2008-09-11

Greater adherence to a Mediterranean diet is associated with a significant improvement in health status, as seen by a significant reduction in overall mortality (9%), mortality from cardiovascular diseases (9%), incidence of or mortality from cancer (6%), and incidence of Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease (13%). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 574,299 Evidence: high

Ginkgo biloba for prevention of dementia: a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 82 out of 100. JAMA 2008-11-01

In this study, G. biloba at 120 mg twice a day was not effective in reducing either the overall incidence rate of dementia or AD incidence in elderly individuals with normal cognition or those with MCI. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,587 Evidence: high

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

Contemporary healthcare policies are designed to shape the conditions that can help delay the institutionalization of patients with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 9,043 Evidence: high

Persistent delirium in older hospital patients: a systematic review of frequency and prognosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Age and ageing 2008-11-18

We sought to determine the frequency and prognosis of persistent delirium (PerD) in older hospital patients by systematically reviewing original research on this topic. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,322 Evidence: high

Community occupational therapy intervention for patients with dementia and their care givers is successful and cost effective, especially in terms of informal care giving. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 135 Evidence: high

Observational epidemiological studies have shown a positive association between hypertension and risk of incident dementia; however, the effects of antihypertensive therapy on cognitive function in controlled trials have been conflicting, and meta-analyses of the trials have not provided clear evidence of whether antihypertensive treatment reduces dementia incidence. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,687 Evidence: high

Inclusion criteria were early AD (mini-mental state examination [MMSE] score between 20 and 26 points or Alzheimer's disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) score between 10 and 25 points), taking a stable dose of acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (donepezil, galantamine, or rivastigmine) for at least 4 months, a modified Hachinski score of 4 points or less, and CT or MRI results that were consistent with AD. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 78 Evidence: high

The primary outcome was the comparison of the effect of DBS with the best medical treatment on overall cognitive functioning (Mattis dementia rating scale). 3 key findings →

Participants: 156 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease risk variants show association with cerebrospinal fluid amyloid beta

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Neurogenetics 2008-09-24

The use of quantitative endophenotypes in genetic studies may provide greater power, allowing for the use of powerful statistical methods and a biological model for the effects of the disease-associated genetic variation. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 313 Evidence: high

This will be vital in moving to a phase III trial that is pragmatic and feasible for these complex patients within the NHS. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high

Volumetric MRI vs clinical predictors of Alzheimer disease in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Neurology 2008-01-01

In moderate stages of amnestic mild cognitive impairment, common cognitive tests provide better predictive accuracy than measures of whole brain, ventricular, entorhinal cortex, or hippocampal volumes for assessing progression to Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 129 Evidence: high

The Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI): MRI methods

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2008-02-26

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is a longitudinal multisite observational study of healthy elders, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The risk of dementia or MCI at follow-up is almost doubled in elderly hip surgery patients with postoperative delirium compared with at-risk patients without delirium. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 112 Evidence: moderate

Circadian rhythm disturbances have been associated with these symptoms. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Home based support for caregivers of persons with dementia, which emphasizes the use of locally available, low-cost human resources, is feasible, acceptable and leads to significant improvements in caregiver mental health and burden of caring. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

20 participants--15 in the AN1792 group, five in the placebo group--died before follow-up started. 2 key findings →

Participants: 80 Evidence: high

155 (85%) patients completed the trial (78 [88%] in dimebon group, 77 [82%] in placebo group). 5 key findings →

Participants: 89 Evidence: low

Use of naproxen or celecoxib did not improve cognitive function. 2 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