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 1–15 of 15 studies with an author at University of Washington (US) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 15 studies tagged home — clear

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.

Other 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.

Behavioral treatment of depression in dementia patients: a controlled clinical trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences 1997-07-01

The current study is a controlled clinical investigation of two nonpharmacological treatments of depression in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Older adults living with Alzheimer’s Disease, dementia or mild cognitive impairment with no informal caregiver or care partner: IDEA Café, the first pilot randomized trial intervention for this underserved populations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Aging & Mental Health 2025-04-20

This study presents findings from IDEA Café, for older adults aged 50 and older living with early dementia, dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease or cognitive impairment (ED/CI) with no informal caregiver or care partner. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high

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

Health Care Costs of Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Within a Medicare Managed Care Provider

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Medical Care 2020-07-23

Total monthly health care costs for individuals with ADRD are statistically greater (P<0.05) than controls beginning in the third month before diagnosis and remain significantly greater through the eighth month following diagnosis. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 927 Evidence: moderate

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

“It may cost you your money, it costs you your life”: a framework for financial hardship in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-07-25

Among 52 participants recruited, 27 were former caregivers, 16 were current caregivers, and nine were persons with dementia; experiences reflected Alzheimer's (n = 18), sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob (n = 12), Lewy body (n = 7), and other dementias (n = 15). 5 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

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

The costs of dementia care by US state: Medical spending and the cost of unpaid caregiving

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 2025-03-20

BackgroundThere are 5.5 million people living with dementia in the United States (US), with the cost of unpaid care making up a significant portion of the care costs. 2 key findings →

Design: modelling Evidence: moderate

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

Current and Future Replacement and Opportunity Costs of Family Caregiving for Older Americans With and Without Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-05-31

Current annual replacement cost of unpaid family care is between $96 and $182 billion, 44% of which is accounted for by dementia caregiving. 1 key finding →

Design: modelling Evidence: moderate

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

“By the Time We Knew …”: Poetic Analysis of End‐of‐Life Caregiving Experiences for Rapidly Progressive and Slower‐Duration Dementia Syndromes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2025-02-05

"Rapid-type" caregivers (n = 12) had a median age of 59 (range 45-73) years; 6 were female, and 9 were spouses. 5 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

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

Sharing patient technology preferences with care networks: Stakeholders’ views of the “Let’s Talk Tech” decision aid for dementia care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease 2025-05-01

BackgroundLet's Talk Tech (LTT) is a self-administered web intervention for people with memory loss and their care partners that supports decision-making about digital health technologies. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

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

Sleep disturbances in caregivers of persons with dementia: contributing factors and treatment implications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Sleep medicine reviews 2007-02-06

Estimates suggest that there are more than 10 million adult caregivers of persons with dementia, two-thirds of who experience some form of sleep disturbance during the course of their caregiving career. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Factors associated with high intensity of end‐of‐life care for decedents with dementia in a Medicare Advantage plan

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2022-12-01

We found notable differences in socio‐demographic and clinical characteristics, and utilization patterns in the year prior to death between decedents with dementia who were hospitalized in the last 30 days of life vs. those who were not. 4 key findings →

Participants: 6,299 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

↑ 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. Show only studies that are free to read

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