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.

Improving identification of cognitive impairment in primary care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2006-04-01

A heterogeneous community sample (n=371) of predominantly ethnic minority elderly assessed by standardized research protocol, 231 of whom met criteria for dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →

Participants: 371 Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most frequent cause of dementia, where the abnormal accumulation of beta-amyloid (Aβ) and tau lead to neurodegeneration as well as loss of cognitive, behavioral, and functional abilities. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We describe the history, development, and success of the recruitment and screening procedures used by researchers at the University of California, Davis Alzheimer's Disease Center (UCD ADC) to facilitate minority enrollment in research. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Design identification of relevant items, pre-testing of items and refinement of administrative procedures and scoring in four successive groups of 30 subjects each, pilot testing in a group of 100 subjects comparable to those for whom the measure is intended, administration to a representative sample of 387 people aged 55 and older, and assessment of the reliability of the final measure. 2 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

Conceptions of dementia in a multiethnic sample of family caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2005-08-01

Understanding variability in conceptions of dementia in multiethnic populations is important to improve care and guide research. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated cognitive impairment, a significant cause of morbidity, affects up to 30% of HIV-infected people. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Divorced marital status was significantly associated with an increased LOS following TKA. 5 key findings →

Participants: 234 Evidence: low

The model accurately identified dementia subtypes using measures readily available in underrepresented settings, with a similar performance than advanced biomarkers. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

To ensure diversity, we developed a comprehensive recruitment strategy using a diverse, culturally‐trained staff that includes : • Identifying Dementia Specialists experienced recruiting minorities • Embedding high‐impact community engagement in select regions • Increasing capacity of specialists and PET facilities to engage minorities • Increasing pipeline of referrals to Dementia Specialists • Creating a culturally‐informed awareness campaign Result New IDEAS has enrolled 4,524 participants including 954 (21.1%) Black/African American, and 842 (18.6%) Hispanic/Latinx. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,524 Evidence: moderate

Older age was associated with greater odds of abnormal p-Tau217 (odds ratio [OR] 1.08 per year, 95% CI 1.07–1.09), as was APOE ε4 carrier status (OR 3.32, 95% CI 2.65–4.17). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,798 Evidence: moderate

Tau PET imaging in Black and Latino participants with and without cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Eighty-three Black (mean 72±10.8-years-old, 63% female, 33% cognitively impaired) and 27 Latino participants (mean 65.8-years-old, 56% female, 11% cognitively impaired) completed neuroimaging. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 83 Evidence: moderate

Between 1992-2021, global AD cases increased from 4.078 million to 9.837 million, while the global age-standardised incidence rate (ASIR) remained relatively stable, rising slightly from 117.7 to 119.8 per 100 000. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

While educational disparities in dementia incidence are well-known, whether and to what extent they persist beyond dementia onset is less explored. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Rural-Urban Differences in Social Isolation and Dementia Risk Among Older Adults in India

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

Older adults in rural India experience higher social isolation due to limited social and healthcare resources. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 71,513 Evidence: moderate

The OCS-Plus represents a major methodological advance in dementia studies in LMICs, and enhances understanding of cognitive aging. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

In this study, the authors evaluated whether the association between low educational level and increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia may be explained by occupation-based socioeconomic status (SES). 5 key findings →

Participants: 101 Evidence: moderate

Growing epidemiological evidence suggests that premorbid participation in cognitive leisure activities (CLA) reduces the risk of dementia by increasing cognitive reserve. 3 key findings →

Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate

This study aimed to explore racial/ethnic differences in the attitudes toward Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and dementia caregiving among midlife women who were family caregivers of persons living with AD (MWPLAD) in the U.S. and examine the associations of the attitudes to their health outcomes. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

More women than men were in the patient group (χ 2 1 =17.2, P<.001) and in the caregiver group (χ 2 1 =22.2, P<.001). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Current annual replacement cost of unpaid family care is between $96 and $182 billion, 44% of which is accounted for by dementia caregiving. 1 key finding →

Design: modelling Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

10 of the 926 studies in this tag that have a study page, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% 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    Where this research is being discussed: events