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.

BackgroundThere are 5.5 million people living with dementia in the United States (US), with the cost of unpaid care making up a significant portion of the care costs. 2 key findings →

Design: modelling Evidence: moderate

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

Iron influx increases the translation of the Alzheimer amyloid precursor protein (APP) via an iron-responsive element (IRE) RNA stem loop in its 5'-untranslated region. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The most important predictors of having a diagnosis of ADRD by the start of care OASIS assessment were a prior discharge diagnosis of ADRD among those admitted from an inpatient setting, and frequently exhibiting symptoms of confusion. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Medicare's Annual Wellness Visit in a Large Health Care Organization: Who Is Using It?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Annals of Internal Medicine 2015-10-05

This benefit is being offered at no cost to eligible Medicare recipients; however, recent reports suggest that few persons are taking advantage of it (1–3) and who is using it is unclear. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The role of lifestyle medicine in menopausal health: a review of non-pharmacologic interventions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Climacteric 2025-09-03

Lifestyle medicine interventions were associated with reductions in vasomotor symptoms, improved sleep quality, enhanced mental well-being, healthier weight regulation, and reduced cardiometabolic and osteoporosis risk. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In a sample of 2,599 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age 78.4 years, 52.9% female, 81.8% White), we identified a total of 5,677 hospitalization claims. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,677 Evidence: low

After controlling for comorbidities, treated AD patients have better survival, lower institutionalization, and sometimes fewer resource utilizations, suggesting that treatment and improved care management could be beneficial for newly-diagnosed AD patients from economic and clinical perspectives. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 40 loci associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the causal variants, regulatory elements, genes and pathways remain largely unknown, impeding a mechanistic understanding of AD pathogenesis. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

US Health Care Spending by Payer and Health Condition, 1996-2016

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. JAMA 2020-03-01

Total health care spending increased from an estimated $1.4 trillion in 1996 (13.3% of gross domestic product [GDP]; $5259 per person) to an estimated $3.1 trillion in 2016 (17.9% of GDP; $9655 per person); 85.2% of that spending was included in this study. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Utilization and costs for patients with AD were higher compared to controls and were substantially higher for patients with both AD and co-morbid diseases commonly targeted for disease management. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,366 Evidence: low

The Inflation Reduction Act Medicare Part D benefit redesign will reduce OOP drug spending for beneficiaries with dementia, resulting in potentially marked savings not only for low-income beneficiaries and beneficiaries with a high comorbidity burden but also for higher-income beneficiaries. 1 key finding →

Design: modelling Participants: 1,677 Evidence: moderate

The budgetary impacts are not insignificant but are small in comparison to the likely market price of any disease-modifying treatments or to the probable costs of missed or inaccurate diagnosis. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Among 5353 MA beneficiary observations (1239 [23.1%] aged 65-74 years; 3127 [58.4%] aged ≥75 years; 1785 male [33.3%]), 1629 (30.4%) reported a diagnosis of ADRD, and 3724 (69.6%) did not report an ADRD diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Among 738 MA and 1488 FFS participants, weighted mean age was 76 years (SD 7.0), 59% were female, and 9% had probable dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study 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