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 burden of health care costs for patients with dementia in the last 5 years of life

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Annals of internal medicine 2015-10-27

Health care expenditures among persons with dementia were substantially larger than those for other diseases, and many of the expenses were uncovered (uninsured). 1 key finding →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 1,702 Evidence: moderate

Letters18 February 2020Geographic Variation in Prevalence of Adult Obesity in China: Results From the 2013–2014 National Chronic Disease and Risk Factor SurveillanceXiao Zhang, MD, PhD, Mei Zhang, MD, PhD, Zhenping Zhao, MD, Zhengjing Huang, MPH, Qian Deng, MD, PhD, Yichong Li, MD, PhD, An Pan, MD, PhD, Chun Li, MD, Zhihua Chen, MD, Maigeng Zhou, MD, PhD, Chao Yu, PhD, Alfred Stein, PhD, Peng Jia, PhD*, and Limin Wang, MPH*Xiao Zhang, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Mei Zhang, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Zhenping Zhao, MDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Zhengjing Huang, MPHNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Qian Deng, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Yichong Li, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), An Pan, MD, PhDSchool of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China (A.P.), Chun Li, MDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Zhihua Chen, MDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Maigeng Zhou, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Disclosure of pleiotropic information did not increase anxiety or depression and may have decreased distress among persons at increased risk for 2 conditions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

The online SiD decision aid increased preparation for decision making about firearm access in this sample of ADRD caregivers in the United States. 5 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate

The 3D-CAM operationalizes the CAM algorithm using a 3-minute structured assessment with high sensitivity and specificity relative to a reference standard and could be an important tool for improving recognition of delirium. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 201 Evidence: low

Targeting Functional Decline in Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Annals of internal medicine 2016-11-22

The authors could not definitively demonstrate whether the addition of 2 years of in-home occupational therapy to a collaborative care management model slowed the rate of functional decline among persons with Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

A structured multicomponent intervention adapted to individual risk profiles can increase the quality of life of ethnically diverse dementia caregivers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Determinants of medical expenditures in the last 6 months of life

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Annals of internal medicine 2011-02-01

It was hypothesized that race or ethnicity, social support, and functional status are independently associated with treatment intensity and controlling for regional characteristics, and that individual characteristics account for a substantial proportion of expenditure variation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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.

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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.

1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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    Where this research is being discussed: events

Last updated