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.

Gridlock in hospital medicine

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2023-12-12

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, supply and demand forcast models predicted significant nursing shortages across the United States through 2030 due to both an aging patient population and nursing workforce.1, 2 However, during the pandemic, we saw an exodus of younger nurses in addition to early retirements. 5 key findings →

Participants: 100 Evidence: low

Annual Wellness Visit utilization was associated with an increased probability of new dementia diagnosis with effects varying by racial group (categorized as white, black, Hispanic/Latino, or Asian based on Social Security Administration data). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Higher segregation, indicated by lower tract and county-level interaction, was associated with better cognitive and everyday functioning levels but faster rates of decline. 5 key findings →

Participants: 695 Evidence: low

Associations of neighbourhood NO2 level, walkability, public open space and social fragmentation with dementia incidence and estimated future risk of dementia were statistically significant, indicating the potential to reduce the risk through changes in built and social environments. 3 key findings →

Participants: 25,511 Evidence: low

Key independent variables included the interaction of NH quality (measured by 5‐star rating) and race (i.e. black versus white), and interaction of NH quality, race, and state Medicaid dementia‐related add‐on policies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 874,526 Evidence: low

[95% CI] = 0.148 [0.077-0.219]; executive function, 0.138 [0.067-0.208]; episodic memory, 0.020 [-0.051 to 0.091]; working memory, 0.128 [0.059-0.197]; visuospatial processing, 0.094 [0.023-0.164]) outperformed area-level SES in detecting cognitive deficits, and demonstrated widespread associations with poorer performance across cognitive domains. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Caregiving difficulties showed excellent reliability (α = 0.928) and yielded three components explaining 73.19% of variance. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,254 Evidence: low

Participants racialized as Black who lived in places with higher levels of area‐level structural socioeconomic racism experienced lower levels of cognition at baseline and at varying time points in the six‐year period—compared to those in places with lower structural socioeconomic racism. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,172 Evidence: low

Chronic dialysis is associated with relatively high mortality and increased comorbidities that may render the patient unsuitable for renal transplantation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Using a large and diverse community‐based cohort, we demonstrate that ethno‐racial differences in AD‐specific plasma biomarkers are, in part, due to modifiable health and comorbidity factors. 2 key findings →

Participants: 931 Evidence: moderate

The challenge of opt-outs from NHS data: a small-area perspective

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of Public Health 2018-03-06

As a result, NHS data provide a huge and invaluable resource of routinely collected primary (e.g. visits to GP practices) and secondary (e.g. hospital admissions, outpatient appointments, A&E attendances) healthcare data covering near-100% of the population of England. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Fourteen participants (21.5%) converted to MCI, and 24 (36.9%) were classified as Prog-1.Plasma biomarkers did not show consistent predictive performance across predefined endpoints (all p>0.05), although NfL demonstrated modest discrimination for MCI conversion (area under the curve [AUC] 0.686, p=0.008).Hippocampal volume demonstrated significant discriminative performance for MCI conversion (AUC 0.765, p=0.016) and Prog-1 (AUC 0.933, p<0.001).For Prog-2, hippocampal volume showed high discrimination (AUC 0.952, p<0.001).WMH grade also demonstrated significant discrimination for MCI conversion (AUC 0.835, p<0.001) and Prog-1 (AUC 0.857, p<0.001).Bootstrap analyses (1,000 iterations) tended to show higher AUC estimates for imaging markers compared with plasma biomarkers. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Machine learning enables scalable quantification of neuropathology, offering deeper phenotyping of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 273 Evidence: low

These findings highlight normative modelling's utility in revealing the complex interplay among sex, age, and AD risk in shaping brain structure and cognition in later life. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

None of the genetically proxied functional network features were significantly associated with neurodegenerative outcomes (adjusted P value >0.05), despite sufficient calculated power. 5 key findings →

Participants: 47 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
  • 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