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.

There were 13,700 beneficiaries with full-year enrollment in MA (6,046) or TM (7,724), 518 with ADRD and 13,252 without ADRD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Of members initiated on an antimuscarinic OAB medication, 31.1% had a drug-drug or drug-disease or syndrome interaction. 5 key findings →

Participants: 66,275 Evidence: low

Out of Pocket Costs for People with Dementia: A Comparison Across Insurance Types

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

Among PWD with Medicaid, out-of-pocket costs for nursing homes and assisted living facilities were significantly higher (60%) compared to those TM (33%) and MA (30%). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

For patients with serious comorbidities, diabetes management guidelines recommend more relaxed glycemic targets (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] <8-8.5% rather than <7%) and cautious use of agents known to cause hypoglycemia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 216,839 Evidence: moderate

In this study on Medicare patients with AF, Black race, low-income subsidy, and dual eligibility were found to be associated with delayed OAC initiation, suggesting potential disparities in the care of AF with timely OAC treatment. 5 key findings →

Participants: 446,441 Evidence: low

Of 2 197 732 beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs in 2021, 881 736 (40.1%) were living in counties with aligned enrollment available and 251 305 (11.4%) enrolled. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Addressing disparities related to Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD) is a priority for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Semantic dementia (SD) is a clinical subtype of frontotemporal dementia characterized by impaired word comprehension and semantic memory, and occurs nearly always sporadically. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

The project is expected to generate evidence on the effectiveness, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of multidomain interventions implemented across diverse real-world settings, including community, hospital, and long-term care. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The demographic transition during the recent decades has resulted in an increase in older adults globally. 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Identifying strategies to enhance patient engagement and to control healthcare costs promotes a responsive and efficient healthcare system. 4 key findings →

Participants: 401 Evidence: low

Misconceptions were common: 38% of participants equated ACP exclusively with decisions to forgo active treatment, and many conflated ACP with current rather than future-oriented care planning. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

ACP is linked to lower EOL spending and a shift from inpatient to outpatient ADRD care; structured ACP delivery should be considered. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Long-term value of lecanemab to individuals and families

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2025-09-02

An assessment of the value of lecanemab for patients living with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and their care partners provides them and their health-care providers important information for deciding treatment initiation. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A nationwide ACP program in the primary care setting is a cost-effective or cost-saving intervention compared to usual care in a population at-risk of developing dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent efforts have revealed that numerous protein-coding messenger RNAs have natural antisense transcript partners, most of which seem to be noncoding RNAs. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The NLRP3 inflammasome is a critical component of the innate immune system that mediates caspase-1 activation and the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines IL-1β/IL-18 in response to microbial infection and cellular damage. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

ADODs will cost the world economy 14 513 billion international dollars (INT$, measured in the base year 2020; 95% uncertainty interval [UI] 12 106-17 778) from 2020 to 2050, equivalent to 0·421% (95% UI 0·351-0·515) of annual global GDP. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 705 studies in this tag, 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 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