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.

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

Ginkgo biloba for preventing cognitive decline in older adults: a randomized trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. JAMA 2009-12-01

Compared with placebo, the use of G. biloba, 120 mg twice daily, did not result in less cognitive decline in older adults with normal cognition or with mild cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,545 Evidence: high

Older people who view a video depiction of a patient with advanced dementia after hearing a verbal description of the condition are more likely to opt for comfort as their goal of care compared with those who solely listen to a verbal description. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 106 Evidence: high

We aimed to assess whether continued treatment with antipsychotics in people with AD is associated with an increased risk of mortality. 5 key findings →

Participants: 165 Evidence: high

AD patients aged 50-85 years were randomized to open-label treatment with oral rivastigmine, donepezil or galantamine for 13 weeks. 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 63 Evidence: high

The purpose of this study was to use serial imaging to gain insight into the sequence of pathologic events in Alzheimer's disease, and the clinical features associated with this sequence. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 21 Evidence: moderate

72 patients with PDD or DLB were randomly assigned and started treatment: 34 with memantine and 38 with placebo. 56 (78%) completed the study. 2 key findings →

Participants: 72 Evidence: high

Postmenopausal hormone therapy and regional brain volumes: the WHIMS-MRI Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Neurology 2009-01-01

Conjugated equine estrogens with or without MPA are associated with greater brain atrophy among women aged 65 years and older; however, the adverse effects are most evident in women experiencing cognitive deficits before initiating hormone therapy. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Analysis of error types provides useful information about the stages and processes involved in normal and aphasic word production. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 64 Evidence: high

The relationships between alcohol consumption and dementia and cognitive decline were investigated in a systematic review including meta-analyses of 15 prospective studies. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 14,646 Evidence: high

A statistically significant age-adjusted association was observed between the A1C level and the score on all four cognitive tests. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

We have demonstrated that three baseline measures, namely, age >or=72 years, semantic fluency less than 20 words in 90 s and inability to copy an intersecting pentagons figure, are significant predictors of dementia risk, thus validating our previous findings. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 126 Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal pattern of regional brain volume change differentiates normal aging from MCI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Neurology 2009-06-01

Early identification of patterns of abnormality is of fundamental importance for detecting disease onset and tracking progression. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,017 Evidence: moderate

Efficacy of PPAR-γ agonist pioglitazone in mild Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2009-11-17

To test the effects of the PPAR-γ agonist pioglitazone on cognition, regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF), and plasma levels of Aβ40 and Aβ42, we conducted a 6-month, randomized, open-controlled trial in patients with mild Alzheimer disease (AD) accompanied with type II diabetes mellitus. 2 key findings →

Participants: 21 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