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.

Single-Cell Gene-Regulatory Networks of Advanced Symptomatic Atherosclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Circulation research 2024-04-19

Single-cell RNA sequencing data generated with SmartSeq2 (≈8000 genes/cell) in 16 588 single cells isolated during atherosclerosis progression in Ldlr -/- Apob 100/100 mice with human-like plasma lipoproteins and from humans with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid plaques was clustered into multiple subtypes. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Among 370,094 persons with dementia, 93,801 (25.4%) were in MA (mean age [SD], 86.9 [7.7], 67.6% female), 39,586 (10.7%) were ACO attributed (mean age [SD], 87.2 [7.6], 67.3% female), and 236,707 (63.9%) were in TM (mean age [SD], 87.0 [7.8], 67.6% female). 5 key findings →

Participants: 370,094 Evidence: low

Case Definition for Diagnosed Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias in Medicare

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-09-03

Of the 60 000 869 beneficiaries included (50 853 806 aged 65 years or older [84.8%]; 32 567 891 female [54.3%]; 5 555 571 Hispanic [9.3%]; 6 318 194 non-Hispanic Black [10.5%]; 44 384 980 non-Hispanic White [74.0%]), there were 4 312 496 (7.2%) with highly likely ADRD, 1 124 080 (1.9%) with likely ADRD, and 2 572 176 (4.3%) with possible ADRD, totaling more than 8.0 million with diagnostic evidence of at least possible ADRD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Geographic Variation in Diagnosis Frequency and Risk of Death Among Medicare Beneficiaries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. JAMA 2011-03-15

Diagnosis frequency ranged across HRRs from 0.58 chronic conditions in Grand Junction, Colorado, to 1.23 in Miami, Florida (mean, 0.90 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.89-0.91]; median, 0.87 [interquartile range, 0.80-0.96]). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Hospice Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Parkinson Disease and Dementia With Lewy Bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-03-04

Of 11 327 324 Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in hospice between 2010 and 2020 who met eligibility criteria (mean [SD] age, 85.2 [7.5] years; 781 763 [63.0%] female), there were 958 182 (8.4%) with a primary diagnosis of AD, 232 864 (2.1%) with PD, and 49 340 (0.4%) with DLB. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Cost-effectiveness of donepezil in the treatment of mild or moderate Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 1999-04-01

The results of the cost-effectiveness model presented here suggest that donepezil may be cost-effective but additional controlled data on long-term drug efficacy are needed. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

The purpose of this study was to identify the specific patient comorbidities that are associated with an increased risk of periprosthetic joint infection and of ninety-day postoperative mortality in U.S. Results Comorbid conditions associated with an increased adjusted risk of periprosthetic joint infection (in decreasing order of significance, p < 0.05 for all comparisons) were rheumatologic disease (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.71), obesity (HR = 1.73), coagulopathy (HR = 1.58), and preoperative anemia (HR = 1.36). 4 key findings →

Participants: 40,919 Evidence: low

Most people with dementia prefer to remain in their own homes, and funding bodies see this as cheaper than institutionalisation. 1 key finding →

Participants: 3,075 Evidence: low

This German study challenged the common assumption that keeping a person with dementia at home is always cheaper than nursing home care. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate

The estimated total annual costs of dementia in China increased from 0.9 billion United States dollars (US$) in 1990 to US$ 47.2 billion in 2010 and were predicted to reach US$ 69.0 billion in 2020 and US$ 114.2 billion in 2030. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Delayed discharge is associated with higher hospital costs and complication rates especially nosocomial infections. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small regulatory RNAs that participate in posttranscriptional gene regulation in a sequence-specific manner. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Intervention participants in all four disease groups had less hospital use and lower hospital costs nonintervention participants, which drove lower overall healthcare costs. 3 key findings →

Participants: 368 Evidence: low

Overall, both algorithms demonstrated comparable performance in MA and FFS populations, with high specificity (>97.9%) and negative predictive value [NPV] (>92.9%). 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,018 Evidence: low

The study sample included 21 193 170 patients with 32 199 587 beneficiary-year observations (mean [SD] age, 75.5 [7.3] years; 18 936 697 [58.8%] female; 983 513 [3.1%] Asian or Pacific Islander, 3 190 515 [9.9%] Black, 2 710 930 [8.4%] Hispanic, and 25 314 629 [78.6%] White). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 21 Evidence: low

Rapid health technology assessment of galantamine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: A review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Medicine 2025-06-09

This study evaluates the efficacy, safety, and economics of galantamine in the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) patients, and to provide evidence-based reference for optimizing drug selection, dosing strategies, and reimbursement policies in clinical practice. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

These results suggest that management of patients with advanced DAT on a DSCU using a palliative care philosophy may result in less patient discomfort and lower costs than management on a TLTC. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Further guidelines should be developed to help clinicians to promptly refer terminal cancer and non-cancer patients to hospice care. 5 key findings →

Participants: 8,459 Evidence: low

From across this tag

9 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 9. The same 9 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