alzhub.org
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.

Research

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 37 studies in BMJ open · free to read (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Combining modifiable risk factors and risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. BMJ open 2019-01-25

The strength of the reported associations, the consistency across studies and the suggestion of a dose response supports a need to keep modifiable risk factor exposure to a minimum and to avoid exposure to additional modifiable risks. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Shingles, Zostavax vaccination and risk of developing dementia: a nested case-control study-results from the UK Biobank cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. BMJ open 2021-10-08

Data were drawn from the UK Biobank cohort study with a total of 228 223 participants with Hospital Episodes Statistics and primary care linkage health records. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,378 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Leisure time physical activity and dementia risk: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. BMJ open 2017-10-22

We have reported, for the first time, the dose-response relationship between LTPA and dementia, further supporting the international PA guideline from the standpoint of dementia prevention. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Social support interventions for caregivers of older adults with dementia: a scoping review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. BMJ Open 2025-06-01

A total of 31 studies were selected for this review, revealing six distinct categories of social support interventions for caregivers of older adults with dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 31 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Midlife cognitive testing in Africa: validity of the Harmonised Cognitive Assessment Protocol in the Kenya Life Panel Survey

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. BMJ Open 2025-08-01

Fit of the models to the data was adequate for general cognitive performance (root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.03; comparative fit index (CFI)=0.94; standardised root mean residual (SRMR)=0.05), language (RMSEA=0.02; CFI=0.95; SRMR=0.05) and good for memory (RMSEA=0.05; CFI=0.99; SRMR=0.02) and executive functioning (RMSEA=0.03; CFI=0.98; SRMR=0.03). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,878 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association of social isolation, loneliness and genetic risk with incidence of dementia: UK Biobank Cohort Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. BMJ open 2022-02-23

Social isolation and loneliness have been associated with increased risk of dementia, but it is not known whether this risk is modified or confounded by genetic risk of dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 70 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

SinoMAKS—protocol of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the Chinese version of the non-pharmacological, multimodal MAKS intervention for people with mild to moderate dementia in Chinese nursing homes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. BMJ Open 2025-04-01

This disease is associated with numerous restrictions for those affected but also for caregivers and society. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 200 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Planning Ahead: protocol for a randomised trial of advance care planning for community dwelling older adults at increased mortality risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. BMJ Open 2025-05-01

An important goal of advance care planning (ACP) is ensuring that patients receive care concordant with their preferences. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Identifying triggers for optimal timing of advance care planning in electronic primary health care records: a nested case-control study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. BMJ Open 2025-11-01

We included 17098 records, 4139 from deceased individuals (mean age 81) and 12959 from living individuals (mean age 79). 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 17,098 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Advancing Alzheimer’s disease risk prediction: development and validation of a machine learning-based preclinical screening model in a cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. BMJ Open 2025-02-01

11 variables were critical in the training phase, including educational level, depression, insomnia, age, Body Mass Index (BMI), medication count, gender, stenting, systolic blood pressure (sbp), neurosis and rapid eye movement. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,379 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Generative artificial intelligence in dementia care: a scoping review protocol on nursing roles, experiences and ethical perspectives

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. BMJ Open 2026-02-01

Critical appraisal will not be undertaken, as it is optional in scoping reviews and is not aligned with the primary mapping objectives of this review. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Occurrence of advance care planning for persons with dementia, cancer and other chronic-progressive diseases in general practice: longitudinal analysis of data from health records linked with administrative data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. BMJ Open 2025-09-01

In adjusted analyses, the rate of first ACP conversation for persons with organ failure was the lowest (IRR 0.70 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.73)). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

How many people will need palliative care in Scotland by 2040? A mixed-method study of projected palliative care need and recommendations for service delivery

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. BMJ open 2021-02-03

By 2040 more people in Scotland are projected to die with palliative care needs, and the complexity of need will increase markedly. 3 key findings →

Participants: 34 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Quality and safety indicators for home care recipients in Australia: development and cross-sectional analyses

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. BMJ Open 2022-08-01

A comprehensive outcome monitoring system to monitor the quality and safety of care and variation for HCP recipients was developed. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 68 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Companion robots for older people: importance of user-centred design demonstrated through observations and focus groups comparing preferences of older people and roboticists in South West England

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. BMJ open 2019-09-26

The observed misalignment of opinion between end users and developers on desirable design features of companion robots demonstrates the need for user-centred design during development. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Evaluating the effects of liraglutide, empagliflozin and linagliptin on mild cognitive impairment remission in patients with type 2 diabetes (LIGHT-MCI): study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial with an extension phase

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. BMJ Open 2025-08-01

Diabetes is a significant modifiable risk factor for cognitive dysfunction. 1 key finding →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 396 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association of brain amyloidosis with the incidence and frequency of neuropsychiatric symptoms in ADNI: a multisite observational cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. BMJ open 2019-12-18

275 cognitively normal controls (NC), 100 subjective memory complaint (SMC), 559 mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 143 Alzheimer's disease dementia subjects from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative received ( 18 F)-florbetapir positron emission tomography (PET) scans. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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
  • 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