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.

The results provide evidence for the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of extended nursing roles in dementia care, demonstrating that extended nursing roles reduce unmet needs and improve quality of life. 3 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 417 Evidence: moderate

Of 44 844 patients invited to the APT Webstudy, the mean (SD) age was 64.7 (10.1) years, 25 447 (56.8%) were women, 25 044 (55.8%) had Medicaid insurance, 11 347 (25.3%) were Hispanic/Latino, 9526 (21.2%) were non-Hispanic Asian, 6044 (13.5%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 12 109 (27%) were non-Hispanic White. 2 key findings →

Participants: 844 Evidence: high

Characterizing the RNA targets and position-dependent splicing regulation by TDP-43

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 2011-02-27

TDP-43 is a predominantly nuclear RNA-binding protein that forms inclusion bodies in frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Telemental health (TMH) for older patients has the potential to increase access to geriatric specialists, reduce travel times for patients and providers, and reduce ever growing healthcare costs. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The weighted prevalence of dementia at provincial level in China in 2018 ranged from 2.62% (95%BCI: 1.70%, 3.91%) to 13.53% (95%BCI: 8.82%, 20.93%). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 17,176 Evidence: moderate

Urinary tract infections, pressure areas, pneumonia and delirium are potentially preventable hospital-acquired complications. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The goal of the present study was to assess the validity of the Medicare hospice eligibility guidelines for dementia patients, as well as identify predictors that could more accurately identify prognosis in dementia patients referred to hospice. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 245 Evidence: moderate

We used records of 2 784 138 patients for the calculation of cumulative incidence and of 3 872 451 patients for the calculation of period prevalence and median age at diagnosis of these conditions. 5 key findings →

Participants: 138 Evidence: low

This study is the first to document concurrent prevalence of primary dementia subtypes among this US population. 1 key finding →

Participants: 21 Evidence: low

The main cost drivers in dementia: a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2014-10-16

The results of this review highlight the significant economic burden of dementia for patients, families and healthcare systems and thus are important for future health policy planning. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Medicare Advantage Beneficiary Enrollment Decisions Following New Complex Conditions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA Health Forum 2026-08-21

The analytic sample included 1 054 926 beneficiaries, including 219 942 (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [6.3] years; 54.6% female) who developed new complex conditions in 2019 and 834 984 (mean [SD] age, 73.8 [5.6] years; 56.7% female) who did not develop a new complex condition in 2019. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Non-specific codes were most common. Alzheimer's and vascular dementia codes showed high regional variability. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,016 Evidence: moderate

The program made it feasible to finance a costly treatment for patients that may benefit from it, while maintaining qualitative medical outcomes and sparing treating ophthalmologist from ethical gatekeeping dilemmas 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 5,642 Evidence: moderate

PET participants lived longer in community (0.26 years, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05 to 0.45) and overall (0.15, CI: 0.02 to 0.27), but did not have statistically different health insurance (€703, CI: -3974 to 5045) or total costs including institutionalization (-€8258, CI: -20,622 to 3377). 5 key findings →

Participants: 440 Evidence: moderate

2020 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2020-03-10

This article describes the public health impact of Alzheimer's disease (AD), including incidence and prevalence, mortality and morbidity, use and costs of care, and the overall impact on caregivers and society. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

This was a retrospective cohort study to examine differences in health service utilization and outcomes between FFS and MA patients in SNFs following hip fracture hospitalization during the period January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015, and followed up until December 31, 2015. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

In both the mortality and readmission cohorts we found significant associations with each pollutant. 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 118 Evidence: moderate

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