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.

Time requirements for the medication administration process are substantial in LTC and are compounded when nurses are unfamiliar with residents. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This study has shown that physical restraints are used frequently in geriatric care in Sweden and that cognitive and physical impairments relate very closely to the use of physical restraints. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,325 Evidence: low

Probands (n = 3607) living in long-term care institutions in the county of Västerbotten were assessed to estimate whether the prevalence of dementia in different types of institutions had changed since a similar survey was made 7 years before. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,607 Evidence: low

A total of 47 adults aged 55+ years were recruited (50% male; 49% aged 60-69 years; 28% aged above 70 years), and 26 HCPs were involved, comprising dietitians (n = 8); geriatricians (n = 6); clinical therapists (n = 4); and nurses, pharmacists, catering managers and meal delivery service coordinators (n = 2 each). 5 key findings →

Participants: 47 Evidence: low

In 1996, the St. John's region had a population of 8,435 > or = 75 years, with 996 nursing home (NH) beds and 550 supervised care (SC) beds. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,044 Evidence: moderate

There were 13,700 beneficiaries with full-year enrollment in MA (6,046) or TM (7,724), 518 with ADRD and 13,252 without ADRD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Twenty-six percent of eligible ED users contacted elected for study enrollment. 5 key findings →

Participants: 160 Evidence: low

The average age for patient was 78.13 ± 10.25 and for caregivers was 54.64 ± 13.22 years. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 108 Evidence: low

Delirium, a severe neuropsychiatric syndrome characterised by acute deficits in attention and self-awareness, is common among elderly inpatients, with incidence increasing with age and prolonged hospitalisation. 2 key findings →

Participants: 89 Evidence: low

Misconceptions were common: 38% of participants equated ACP exclusively with decisions to forgo active treatment, and many conflated ACP with current rather than future-oriented care planning. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Palliative Care Resource Utilization in Patients with Prion Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

172 patients with symptomatic prion disease were identified. 165 (94.8%) patients experienced ≥1 symptom/sign likely to benefit from palliative care, yet only 113 (65.7%) patients accessed palliative care resources during the illness course (hospice care: 39.7%; palliative care consultation: 14.9% inpatient, 6.9% outpatient; both: 3.4%). 5 key findings →

Participants: 172 Evidence: low

All patients had a Needs Near the End-of-Life Care Screening (NEST-13) score ≥30, indicating a high level of EOL care need. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 301 Evidence: low

Among 2,435,099 weighted hospitalizations, palliative care documentation was present in 65,675 (2.70%), increasing from 2.13% in 2016 to 3.43% in 2022. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

After matching for demographic and health variables, usage of ACP codes was associated with significantly fewer hospitalizations for Alzheimer's disease patients. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Bivariate analyses showed that chain grocery store shoppers reported significantly greater fruit and vegetable intake (2.42 vs. 2.14 times/day for independent grocery store shoppers, p < 0.001) and lower rates of food insecurity compared to independent store shoppers (45.9% vs. 65.3% for independent grocery store shoppers, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 862 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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