alzhub.org
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.

Research

27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 101–125 of 202 studies in JAMA (page 5 of 9) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 202 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

This list as a page: JAMA in the library →

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,259 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.

Effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with Alzheimer disease in primary care: a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA 2006-05-01

Collaborative care for the treatment of Alzheimer disease resulted in significant improvement in the quality of care and in behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia among primary care patients and their caregivers. 5 key findings →

Participants: 84 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Mixed dementia: emerging concepts and therapeutic implications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA 2004-12-01

The measured benefits in clinical trials for the treatment of mixed dementia are best described as statistically significant differences in cognitive test scores and clinician and caregiver impressions of change. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Effect of Regional vs General Anesthesia on Incidence of Postoperative Delirium in Older Patients Undergoing Hip Fracture Surgery: The RAGA Randomized Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA 2022-01-01

In patients aged 65 years and older undergoing hip fracture surgery, regional anesthesia without sedation did not significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium compared with general anesthesia. 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 476 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Apolipoprotein E type 4 allele and cerebral glucose metabolism in relatives at risk for familial Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA 1995-03-01

These results suggest that the inheritance of APOE epsilon 4 is associated with reduced cerebral parietal metabolism and increased asymmetry in non-demented relatives at risk for probable AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 12 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Association of Seafood Consumption, Brain Mercury Level, and APOE ε4 Status With Brain Neuropathology in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA 2016-02-01

Among the 286 autopsied brains of 544 participants, brain mercury levels were positively correlated with the number of seafood meals consumed per week (ρ = 0.16; P = .02). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 286 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The metabolic syndrome, inflammation, and risk of cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA 2004-11-01

These findings support the hypothesis that the metabolic syndrome contributes to cognitive impairment in elders, but primarily in those with high level of inflammation. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,616 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Intervention to Promote Communication About Goals of Care for Hospitalized Patients With Serious Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA 2023-06-01

Among hospitalized older adults with serious illness, a pragmatic clinician-facing communication-priming intervention significantly improved documentation of goals-of-care discussions in the electronic health record, with a greater effect size in racially or ethnically minoritized patients. 3 key findings →

Participants: 3,918 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Predicting mortality among patients hospitalized for heart failure: derivation and validation of a clinical model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA 2003-11-01

The mortality rates for the derivation cohort and validation cohort, respectively, were 8.9% and 8.2% in hospital, 10.7% and 10.4% at 30 days, and 32.9% and 30.5% at 1 year. 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,624 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

An AI-Powered Lifestyle Intervention vs Human Coaching in the Diabetes Prevention Program

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA 2025-10-27

A total of 368 participants were included (median [IQR] age, 58 [50-65] years; 71% were female, 27% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 61% were White; median [IQR] BMI, 32.3 [28.5-37.1]). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 368 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association of hospice agency profit status with patient diagnosis, location of care, and length of stay

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA 2011-02-01

Compared with nonprofit hospice agencies, for-profit hospice agencies had a higher percentage of patients with diagnoses associated with lower-skilled needs and longer lengths of stay. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,705 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Effects of rofecoxib or naproxen vs placebo on Alzheimer disease progression: a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. JAMA 2003-06-01

The results of this study indicate that rofecoxib or low-dose naproxen does not slow cognitive decline in patients with mild-to-moderate AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 474 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

↑ 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