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.

We examined state variations in assisted living (AL) regulatory policies for admission/retention, staffing/training, medication management, and dementia care. 3 key findings →

Participants: 46 Evidence: low

Role of the blood-brain barrier in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Current Alzheimer research 2007-04-01

Cerebrovascular dysfunction contributes to the cognitive decline and dementia in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and may precede cerebral amyloid angiopathy and brain accumulation of the Alzheimer's neurotoxin, amyloid beta-peptide (Abeta). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Gridlock in hospital medicine

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2023-12-12

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, supply and demand forcast models predicted significant nursing shortages across the United States through 2030 due to both an aging patient population and nursing workforce.1, 2 However, during the pandemic, we saw an exodus of younger nurses in addition to early retirements. 5 key findings →

Participants: 100 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

Exploring the unmet needs of Latino dementia caregivers: a qualitative study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-09-09

Four themes were derived from the data analysis as key areas of caregiving needs for Latinos: need to connect socially with others; need for resources to provide care; need to understand dementia and navigating existing resources and future care planning; and need for empathic, culturally congruent healthcare. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

State case fatality ranged from 3.32% in North Carolina to 9.26% in Connecticut, but for ALs in these states it was 12.89% and 31.59%, respectively. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

• Caregiver training helps dementia caregivers understand the disease and learn about caregiving skills. • Overall, about one in twelve informal dementia caregivers had taken any caregiving training. • Factors associated with the receipt of training included caregivers’ race, relationship, working status, and payer status, and care recipients’ level of assistance. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,606 Evidence: low

After accounting for individual and county level covariates, we found that a 10 percentage‐point increase in HCBS breadth among individuals with ADRD was associated with 1.1 percentage point reduction (P < 0.01) in the likelihood of NH placement. 3 key findings →

Participants: 365 Evidence: low

In AD-like mice surgery induced acute changes in amyloid-β; perioperative treatment with pVNS effectively reduced amyloid-β load, plaque sphericity, and neuronal loss. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Word-finding deficits persist after left anterotemporal lobectomy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Archives of neurology 1996-01-01

Differences between these results and those of previous studies may reflect differences in extent of surgical resection and/or differential sensitivity of psychometric measures of naming to word-finding problems. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dementia disproportionately affects Hispanic/Latino caregivers, and while some interventions exist, their consideration of intersectional factors remains unclear. 1 key finding →

Participants: 41 Evidence: low

Since 2007, the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups classification system has favored billing codes for acute encephalopathy over delirium codes in determining hospital reimbursement and several quality-of-care value metrics, despite broad overlap between these sets of diagnostic codes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Although the precise role of astrocytes in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is currently undefined, studies carried out at the molecular level may lead to new insights into the functioning of this class of brain cells in dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We found that COVID patients initially experienced substantially longer hospital stays (8.3 vs 4.6 days) and higher 30-day mortality (34% vs 5%) compared to patients without COVID. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Studies were undertaken to assess the extent to which messenger RNA prepared from the postmortem Alzheimer's disease (AD) brain can be used for the successful preparation of a recombinant cDNA library. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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