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.

DNS conditions, particularly dementia, were associated with longer survival among non-oncologic HBPC patients. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Expanding Prior Authorization in Traditional Medicare—The WISeR Model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. JAMA 2025-10-28

This Viewpoint discusses the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) model, a new payment model announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Innovation Center to broaden prior authorization in traditional Medicare. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Rates of hospice use observed in this study (22%) were considerably higher than previously reported, although persons with dementia may continue to be underreferred. 2 key findings →

Participants: 97 Evidence: low

Using a stress process model, risk factors (caregiving stressors, caregiver health, and negative social interactions) and protective factors (caregiving appraisals and social resources) were examined as predictors of family caregiver well-being (depression and life satisfaction). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The study findings demonstrate high user satisfaction with telehealth in a rural memory clinic and the sound psychometric properties of the TeSS in this population. 2 key findings →

Participants: 223 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

The statistical analysis revealed that the survival time was significantly longer in females compared to males (p = 0.003). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 54 Evidence: moderate

The percentage of new enrollees with an ADRD code dropped significantly during the months of IMPACT passage (-1.42 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.13 to -0.71) and implementation (-1.98 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.70 to -1.26) but rose again during the following months. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

This study examined trends in rural-urban disparities in all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the USA between 1969 and 2009. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Mediterranean diet and longevity in Sicily: survey in a Sicani Mountains population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Rejuvenation research 2012-04-01

Over the past several years, increasing evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet has a beneficial influence on several age-related diseases, showing protective effect on health and longevity. 2 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

The Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of pain and symptom management 1997-03-01

We conducted two studies with medically hospitalized cancer and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients to assess the reliability and validity of a new measure of delirium severity, the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS). 4 key findings →

Participants: 33 Evidence: low

This is the first prospective study employing validated measures of delirium to identify an association between preexisting obstructive sleep apnea and postoperative delirium. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Seriously ill, older adults in an urban ED have substantial palliative care needs. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The current practice of palliative care in Belgium is far from the presently considered ideal palliative care approaches. 1 key finding →

Participants: 20 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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