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.

SDOH are potentially modifiable factors, therefore, a deeper understanding of their effects on ADRD can inform future interventions aimed at reducing ADRD prevalence and disparities. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In 2023, US life expectancy reached 78.5 years and healthy life expectancy 64.5 years, both still below prepandemic 2019 levels, with a persistent 13-14-year gap between life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Prevalence of Diagnosed Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias in Medicare Advantage

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2020-12-01

A third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA); however, little is known about MA beneficiaries diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (AD/ADRD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Changes to Medicare Advantage Risk Adjustment and Dementia Diagnosis in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

Financial incentives to detect dementia resulted in more dementia diagnoses, particularly among persons at high risk of dementia and of undetected dementia but also raises concerns about diagnostic upcoding and the potential for over‐diagnosis. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

MA-PD enrollees had significantly lower utilization of PIMs than standalone PDP enrollees: a 0.7 percentage-point [95% CI: 0.5, 0.8] lower prevalence of potentially harmful drug-disease interactions in older adults with dementia; a 3.1 percentage-point [2.6, 3.5] lower prevalence of potentially harmful drug-disease interactions in older adults with dementia and a history of falls; and a 0.5 percentage-point [0.4, 0.6] lower prevalence of high-risk medications in older adults. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Among the 1,035 patients in our dataset, 176 (17%) had a dementia diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,035 Evidence: low

Using a fit‐for‐purpose validated algorithm, the 2019 annual prevalence and incidence of ADRD in the Medicare population aged 65+ with Part D enrollment was estimated to be 18% and 5.8% respectively. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

Adherence to ADRD medications was not associated with specialist availability but was related to individual and socioeconomic context factors in community‐dwelling older individuals with ADRD. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the study scenario, adding plasma p -tau217 testing to SCE reduced diagnostic costs by $342/patient, through more efficient use of amyloid PET and CSF testing. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the colocalization of cis-eQTL and GWAS signals for Hispanics, we observed a high posterior probability (posterior prob = 0.9947) for the upstream gene variant rs755980338 on chromosome 11, which locally regulates EHD1 gene (GWAS p-value = 0.009, cis-eQTL p-value = 0.0041). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of regular dental scaling by evaluating the association between the frequency of dental scaling and the risk of dementia in individuals with moderate to severe periodontal disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Among 19 included studies, most used quantitative designs and secondary data. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The socio-economic determinants of COVID-19: A spatial analysis of German county level data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. Not indexed 2020-07-07

The case and death rates are, for example, significantly positively associated with early cases from the beginning of the epidemic, the average age, the population density and the number of people employed in elderly care. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Predictors of an AD dementia diagnosis included age (odds ratio [OR], 1.71) and use of antipsychotics (OR, 2.50) and hypertension medication (OR, 1.25). 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