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.

Between April 30, 2020, and May 9, 2022, we randomly allocated 204 participants (109 [53%] women and 95 [47%] men) to the intervention group and 98 (60 [61%] women and 38 [39%] men) to the control group. 218 (72%) participants at 6 months and 178 (59%) at 12 months provided cost data. 2 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 302 Evidence: high

The trial occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 106 Evidence: high

Cost of dementia in Medicare managed care: a systematic literature review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. The American journal of managed care 2019-08-01

Despite the growth in Medicare managed care enrollment, only 9 papers report the costs of care for individuals with ADRD within these plans, and only 1 study reports data less than 10 years old. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Medicare program expenditures associated with hospice use

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Annals of internal medicine 2004-02-01

Hospice enrollment correlates with reduced Medicare expenditures among younger decedents with cancer but increased expenditures among decedents without cancer and those older than 84 years of age. 2 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 245 Evidence: moderate

Our results demonstrate delirium is a significant marker of mortality among seniors in the ED, and mortality risk is most salient in the first 3 months following an ED visit. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate

Due to valued informal care, costs of care for community-living patients with moderate dementia are significantly higher than for patients with mild dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Dual-eligible older persons are at greater risk for decline in function and cognition after an ICU hospitalization than their more advantaged counterparts. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 641 Evidence: moderate

Monetary Costs of Dementia in the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2013-04-04

Using a nationally representative survey of older Americans with in-home cognitive testing, researchers estimated that dementia cost the US between $157 billion and $215 billion in 2010, depending on how unpaid family caregiving time is valued. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 856 Evidence: high

The Burden of Health Care Costs for Patients With Dementia in the Last 5 Years of Life

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Annals of Internal Medicine 2015-11-17

This study followed a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries who died and compared total health and long-term care spending in their final five years of life. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,702 Evidence: high

Annual Wellness Visits and Early Dementia Diagnosis Among Medicare Beneficiaries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-10-01

These findings indicate that AWV recipients had a timelier first MCI diagnosis than those who did not receive an AWV, but first ADRD diagnosis differed little. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 549,516 Evidence: moderate

Physical exercise and cognitive and social enrichment activities can enhance cognitive function in patients with chronic stroke, but their cost-effectiveness compared with a balance and tone program is uncertain. 5 key findings →

Participants: 120 Evidence: high

Among older Medicare beneficiaries, incident AF is common and has remained relatively stable for more than a decade. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 433,123 Evidence: moderate

Preventable hospital readmissions have been recognized as indicators of hospital quality, a source of increased healthcare expenditures, and a burden for patients, families, and caregivers. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,133 Evidence: moderate

Collaborative dementia care programs are effective in addressing the needs of patients with dementia and their caregivers. 3 key findings →

Participants: 780 Evidence: high

There were no differences in measures of effectiveness between initiation of active treatments or placebo (which represented watchful waiting) but the placebo group had significantly lower health care costs. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 421 Evidence: high

The sample included 47 100 Medicare beneficiaries (25 900 women [54.9%]; mean [SD] age, 72.2 [11.4] years). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 47 Evidence: moderate

Healthy cognitive aging and dementia prevention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. The American psychologist 2016-05-01

Behavioral prevention strategies can help maintain high levels of cognition and functional integrity, and can reduce the social, medical, and economic burden associated with cognitive aging and age-associated neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The economic evidence for advance care planning: Systematic review of evidence

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Palliative medicine 2015-06-09

There is need for clearer articulation of the likely mechanisms by which advance care planning can lead to reduced care costs or improved cost-effectiveness, particularly for people who retain capacity. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Older adults at the end of life receive a high number of hours of help at the end of life, many from more than one caregiver, which may shape hospice access. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,868 Evidence: moderate

Between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2016, of 63 038 019 individuals who were aged 65 years or older during the study period, we identified 1·0 million cases of Parkinson's disease and 3·4 million cases of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias based on primary and secondary diagnosis billing codes. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 19 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