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.

A strategy of targeting type-specific BPSD may be beneficial, such as environmental stimulus control for DLB patients who are prone to have hallucinations, design of a pacing path for patients with FTD who need support for symptoms of wandering and emotional support for patients with VaD who are susceptible to depression. 1 key finding →

Participants: 137 Evidence: low

The epidemiology of the dementias: an update

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Current opinion in psychiatry 2007-07-01

Current evidence suggests that vascular factors, such as midlife hypertension, diabetes, and cerebrovascular disease, contribute significantly to the development of dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and that active engagement in mental, physical, and social activities may postpone the onset of dementia by providing cognitive reserve. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Debate exists regarding differences in the prevalence of Alzheimer disease (AD) in African Americans and Hispanics in the United States, with some evidence suggesting that the prevalence of AD may be considerably higher in these groups than in non-Hispanic whites. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The present study indicated that most individuals with the comorbidity of epilepsy and dementia have complex partial seizures that may be adequately controlled on AED therapy. 4 key findings →

Participants: 63 Evidence: low

This article outlines methodological enhancements to better evaluate treatment approaches in future registration trials and provides an algorithm for improving the treatment of these patients in nursing home and non-nursing home settings. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Prevalence of dementia in three ethnic groups: the South Florida program on aging and health

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Annals of epidemiology 2003-07-01

To determine the prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia in a multi-ethnic community, we examined a population sample of 2,759 elderly (65 years of age and older) African American, Hispanic-Cuban and white non-Hispanic men and women of Dade County, Florida. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Previous studies have indicated a prevalence of dementia in older admissions of ∼42% in a single London teaching hospital, and 21% in four Queensland hospitals. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

These data suggest that older adults in rural communities may be underdiagnosed with ADRD, and/or diagnosed at later stages of dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Physical aggression in dementia patients and its relationship to depression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. The American journal of psychiatry 1999-01-01

A substantial minority of patients with dementia exhibit physically aggressive behavior, and this aggression is strongly linked with the presence of depressive symptoms. 2 key findings →

Participants: 541 Evidence: low

These methods may be used to improve accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of Dementia predictions from neuropsychological testing. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Seventy percent of cases are due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology and there is a 10-20 year 'pre-clinical' period before significant cognitive decline occurs. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Autobiographical memory and executive function in early dementia of Alzheimer type

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neuropsychologia 1995-12-01

We studied executive function and autobiographical memory in a cohort of 33 DAT patients [divided into minimal (MMSE 24-30) and mild (MMSE 17-23) groups] and in 30 normal controls. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The study is a validation study of two psychogeriatric depression rating scales, The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: low

Population studies indicate that subjective memory complaints by elderly people are correlated with cognitive performance. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,114 Evidence: low

Spectrum of cognition short of dementia: Framingham Heart Study and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology 2015-10-09

We quantitated risk of progression to dementia in elderly persons without dementia from 2 population-based studies, the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), aged 70 to 89 years at enrollment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Prevention of dementia in an ageing world: Evidence and biological rationale

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2020-03-19

As the population ages, the number of people with dementia is expected to increase in the coming decades, with consequences at the societal and individual levels. 4 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

The most important predictors of having a diagnosis of ADRD by the start of care OASIS assessment were a prior discharge diagnosis of ADRD among those admitted from an inpatient setting, and frequently exhibiting symptoms of confusion. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Site of death among individuals with and without dementia in 2016–2018

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2022-02-17

Individuals living with dementia often have limited capacity to express their care preferences at the final stage of life, and therefore, are at risk of receiving end-of-life care that may not align with their preferences.1 While most people prefer to be at home in their final days of life,2 research has shown that individuals with dementia are less likely to die in a home or community setting compared to those without dementia.3, 4 Studies also suggest that the percentage of individuals with dementia who died in a home or community setting has been increasing over time.5, 6 This study sought to update the literature by examining the association between dementia status and site of death, and by comparing the trends in site of death between decedents with and without dementia using recent national data. 5 key findings →

Participants: 813,213 Evidence: low

From across this tag

9 of the 1,233 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 9. The same 9 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