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

30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 2,576–2,600 of 2,931 studies published 2025 · free to read (page 104 of 118) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

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; 16,452 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.

Addressing Caregivers’ Needs beyond Respite: Enhancing Social Connections and Letting Them Know They Matter

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement 2025-07-30

Respite for individuals caring for family living with dementia is a common way to take personal time away from caregiving. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Caring While Moving: Case Studies on Physical Activity and Dementia Caregiver Well-Being

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Healthcare 2025-09-03

While both caregivers participated in physical activity, their case studies reveal opportunities to optimize physical activity interventions to support members of the caregiving dyad: (1) targeting mitochondrial fitness—the ability of mitochondria to maintain energy homeostasis with aging—so participants can mitigate the onset of NCDs, fatigue, and overall health outcomes; (2) promoting the self-care and psychological benefits of physical activity such as improved mood and social connectedness; and (3) improving the accurate perceptions of participants’ health and physical activity with specific measurable markers of physical activity. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Development of a Rural and Remote Dementia Training Framework

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Australian Journal of Rural Health 2025-11-01

Synthesis of the results identified three overarching key principles and seven actionable practices for consideration when designing or delivering dementia education to the rural and remote health and aged care workforce. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

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

Global burden of Alzheimer disease and other dementias reveals escalating geographical disparities and metabolic risks: A comprehensive analysis of 1990–2021 data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Medicine 2025-11-28

Keeping current with the burden and risk factors of Alzheimer disease and other dementias (ADOD) from global to national levels is critical for healthcare planning, prevention strategies, and the allocation of resources. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Identifying natural inhibitors against FUS protein in dementia through machine learning, molecular docking, and dynamics simulation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 2025-02-05

Dementia, a complex and debilitating spectrum of neurodegenerative diseases, presents a profound challenge in the quest for effective treatments. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Enhanced Multi-Model Machine Learning-Based Dementia Detection Using a Data Enrichment Framework: Leveraging the Blessing of Dimensionality

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Bioengineering 2025-05-30

The early diagnosis of dementia, a progressive condition impairing memory, cognition, and functional ability in older adults, is essential for timely intervention and improved patient outcomes. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Preclinical and Prodromal Frontotemporal Dementia: Challenges and Opportunities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. International Journal of Translational Medicine 2025-11-15

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) represents a heterogeneous group of neurodegenerative disorders with overlapping clinical, pathological, and genetic characteristics. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Detecting Mild Cognitive Impairment to Alzheimer’s Disease Progression by fMRI Using Convolutional Neural Network and Long-short Term Memory

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Basic and Clinical Neuroscience Journal 2025-11-01

The results showed that the best validation scores were achieved by the CNN-LSTM model after integrating clinical attributes, with an accuracy of 92.47%. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Evaluating the impact of age and treatment on neuroinflammation-related proteins in mouse models of proteinopathies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Experimental Neurology 2025-09-22

Neuroinflammation plays a key role in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the actions of microglial mediators may vary across stages of Aβ pathology. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

7 FDA Approved CSF Biomarkers Demonstrate Strong Predictive Value for Identification of Alzheimer Disease Based on PET Scan in Patients with Standalone Alzheimer Cognitive Screening Tests

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 2025-11-01

CSF pTau181/Ab42 ratio is a diagnostic marker for Alzheimer disease correlated well with PET scan compared to various standalone cognitive screening assessment. 5 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: low

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

Dysfunctional default mode and visual networks underlie cognitive deficits in dementia with Lewy bodies: a resting-state fMRI study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 2025-11-19

DLB is characterized by DMN and visual network dysfunction, disrupted local neural activity, and impaired global network integration. 3 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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