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

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 51–75 of 430 studies scoring ≤ 29 out of 100 · free to read (page 3 of 18) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 430 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; 13,658 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.

Advance care planning for people with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Nippon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi Japanese Journal of Geriatrics 2026-04-25

認知症を有する人のためのアドバンス・ケア・プランニング（ACP）では，意思決定能力の揺らぎを前提に，「過去」の意思と「現在」の意向を統合し，非言語的サインも含めて本人の推定意思をくみ取ることが重要である．家族を本人の想いを伝える代弁者として位置づけ，その心理的負担を医療・ケアチームが支える必要がある．また，関係依存性自律を踏まえ，多職種協働で本人中心の対話を継続することが求められる．さらに，想いのかけらを情報通信技術（ICT）等で共有し，ACPを組織的に実施する体制整備が重要である． 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Needs of key stakeholders to make advance care plans and advance directives for people with dementia: a scoping review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) 2025-11-10

Forty studies were included. Key stakeholders included healthcare professionals (HCPs); family members and caregivers; PWD; dyads (PWD and their caregivers); the broader public; policymakers; and researchers. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Cerebral small vessel disease and multiple sclerosis: Similarities and differences

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Meditsinskiy sovet = Medical Council 2025-08-08

At the end of the last century, it was realized that not only damage to the gray matter of the brain causes cognitive decline, but also damage to the white matter can lead to a decrease in cognitive abilities of high severity, up to dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Urban Density-Dependent Effects of Neighborhood Park Spatial Features: Evidence from the Seoul Metropolitan Area

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Sustainability 2026-04-11

This study examines how users’ preferences for spatial elements in neighborhood parks influence satisfaction and assesses the moderating role of urban density in this relationship. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

High expression on Kunitz-type protease inhibitor-containing substances in the cerebral vessels of patients with Down syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. The Tohoku journal of experimental medicine 1994-11-01

Down syndrome (DS) brains, from 19 gestational weeks to 50 years of age were studied by immunohistochemical methods with a polyclonal antibody against synthetic peptide comprising part of the Kunitz-type protease inhibitor (KPI) domain of Alzheimer disease amyloid precursor protein (APP), residues 301 to 323 of APP 770. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

The Diagnostic Role of FDG-PET in Dementias Presenting with Language and Behavioral Symptom

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Turk psikiyatri dergisi = Turkish journal of psychiatry 2026-01-01

This study aimed to assess the diagnostic contribution of Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET) in neurodegenerative dementias presenting with language-predominant symptoms, with or without accompanying behavioral changes, and to evaluate the correspondence between PET-derived metabolic patterns and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Regional Variation in Healthcare Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2020-12-01

Controlling for beneficiary, local, and state characteristics, we found the following factors to be associated with beneficiaries spending less time in nursing homes: fewer nursing home beds in the county, higher state Medicaid long-term care spending for home and community-based services (HCBS), and state use of Certificate of Need laws. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A Comparative Study of Operational Models and Economic Sustainability in The Elderly Care Market for Disabled and Dementia Patients in Urban China Under Population Aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences 2025-07-08

In the context of an aging population, China’s elderly care market is experiencing a period of significant transformation. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Research Proposal Consciousness Mode Alzheimers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) 2026-04-22

The dominant research paradigm for Alzheimer's disease has focused on amyloid-beta plaqueremoval for over three decades, producing no curative therapy despite billions of dollars ofinvestment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Neuropsychiatric Symptoms of Alzheimer Disease, Parkinson Disease and Lewy Body Dementia: Genetic, Clinical and Therapeutic Overlaps

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Advances in Geriatric Medicine and Research 2025-07-07

Apolipoprotein E-4 (APOE-4), serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4), and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of glucocerebrosidase (GBA) are some of the main altered genes in AD, PDD and DLB. 5 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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