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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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 876–900 of 1,013 studies (page 36 of 41)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2008-12-01
We noted no differences between decedents with and without dementia in terms of pain, psychosocial status, family involvement, advance care planning, most life-prolonging interventions, and hospice use. 3 key findings →
Each vignette promoted discussion of differences of perspectives about the ways to enhance the dignity of people with dementia in hospital, care home and community settings. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Drugs & aging·2012-09-01
Concerning pain assessment, the findings of this review suggest that self-report pain rating scales, in particular the Verbal Rating Scale, the Horizontal Visual Analogue Scale and the Faces Pain Scale can be administered to patients in a more advanced stage of dementia. 1 key finding →
Physicians should consider advanced dementia as a terminal disease for which there is a continuum of care that goes from palliative care with life-extending measures to symptomatic interventions only. 5 key findings →
The booklet may help nurses educate families about end-of-life issues in dementia palliative care, but local adaptation of the booklet content and physician engagement are necessary. 1 key finding →
Most rural focus group participants voiced unqualified acceptance of death and placed few conditions on death, beyond their hope that it would be quick and peaceful. 3 key findings →
Benefits of palliative care in dementia are acknowledged by experts worldwide, but there is some controversy around its early introduction. 4 key findings →
The purpose of this literature review was to assess the current state of affairs in end-of-life care for persons with dementia, to identify barriers to the provision of high-quality care, and to describe exemplary programs that have discovered ways to overcome these barriers. 5 key findings →
Educating families and professionals about palliative care is important as many professionals and non-professionals believe that this approach intends to hasten death, instead of affirming life and regarding dying as a normal process. 2 key findings →
Providing artificial feeding and fluids and discussing euthanasia may be particularly sensitive topics, and guidance on these subjects needs careful consideration of ethical aspects and possible adaptations to local standards and practice. 1 key finding →
Because previous research favored care in the Netherlands to that in the United States, findings suggest improvement in end-of-life care and outcomes in the United States and stability in the Netherlands. 2 key findings →
Because survival time varies greatly in dementia, it is difficult for dementia patients to meet a key criterion for the Medicare Hospice Benefit, a six-month survival time. 2 key findings →
Our findings indicate the possible need for increased support for caregivers, including educational interventions targeting pain etiology and assessment, and improved communication with health-care professionals. 2 key findings →
Over the years 2005-2006, many ECPs took care of patients with dementia and an ADE, actual life termination of these patients took place very rarely and never in incompetent patients. 5 key findings →
This article explores how married couples managed their finances and made financial decisions when one spouse had dementia, drawing comparisons with the approaches used prior to the illness. 2 key findings →
On the basis of these results, we recommend that discussions that include NHPs, family members, and nurses concerning decisions about possible future situations be held on a regular basis. 2 key findings →
10 of the 1,002 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.
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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.