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 Comparison of the Prevalence of Dementia in the United States in 2000 and 2012

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA Internal Medicine 2017-01-01

Comparing two nationally representative surveys of older Americans 12 years apart, researchers found the share of seniors with dementia fell substantially, from 11.6% in 2000 to 8.8% in 2012. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 21,057 Evidence: high

Collaborative dementia care programs are effective in addressing the needs of patients with dementia and their caregivers. 3 key findings →

Participants: 780 Evidence: high

Low daytime SBP was independently associated with a greater progression of cognitive decline in older patients with dementia and MCI among those treated with AHDs. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 172 Evidence: moderate

Program participants (n = 382 men, n = 701 women; mean [SD] age, 82.10 [7.90] years; age range 54-101 years) were less likely to be admitted to a long-term care facility (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.59-0.61) than those not participating in the dementia care program (n = 759 men, n = 1407 women; mean [SD] age, 82.42 [8.50] years; age range, 34-103 years). 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 382 Evidence: moderate

Beneficiaries with dementia who had lower levels of continuity of care were younger, had a higher income, and had more comorbid medical conditions. 3 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Evidence: moderate

The sample included 3 329 977 beneficiaries (2 126 290 [63.9%] female, 33 887 [1.0%] Asian, 354 771 [10.7%] Black, 61 515 [1.8%] Hispanic, 2 831 391 [85.0%] White, and 891 815 [26.8%] dual eligible for Medicaid). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Dementia Prevention and Treatment: A Narrative Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2024-05-01

Although current prevention and treatment approaches to dementia have been less than optimally successful, substantial investments in dementia research will undoubtedly provide new answers to reducing the burden of dementia worldwide. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

During the 12-year follow-up period, 61 participants (7.8%) had a reported hypoglycemic event, and 148 (18.9%) developed dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 783 Evidence: moderate

Compared with 2000, the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for the increase in NIV use was 2.63 (95% CI, 2.46-2.82; % receipt: 0.8% vs 2.0%) for 2005 and 11.84 (95% CI, 11.11-12.61; % receipt: 0.8% vs 7.1%) for 2017. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This randomized clinical trial found that ADRD screening in PC was not associated with improvement in family member health-related quality of life, caregiver preparedness, or caregiving self-efficacy. 5 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 1,808 Evidence: null result

Quality of End-of-Life Care Provided to Patients With Different Serious Illnesses

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2016-08-01

Among 57 753 decedents, approximately half of the patients with ESRD, cardiopulmonary failure, or frailty received palliative care consultations (adjusted proportions, 50.4%, 46.7%, and 43.7%, respectively) vs 73.5% of patients with cancer and 61.4% of patients with dementia (P Conclusions and relevance Family-reported quality of end-of-life care was significantly better for patients with cancer and those with dementia than for patients with ESRD, cardiopulmonary failure, or frailty, largely owing to higher rates of palliative care consultation and do-not-resuscitate orders and fewer deaths in the intensive care unit among patients with cancer and those with dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The cohort experienced 496 suspected infections; 72.4% were treated with antimicrobials, most commonly quinolones (39.8%) and third- or fourth-generation cephalosporins (20.6%). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Patient and Caregiver Outcomes of Health System, Community-Based, and Usual Dementia Care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Internal Medicine 2025-09-02

A total of 2176 person living with dementia-caregiver dyads were enrolled; 1271 persons living with dementia (58.4%) and 1650 caregivers (75.8%) were female, and their mean (SD) age were 80.6 (8.5) years and 65.2 (12.3) years, respectively. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,271 Evidence: high

The findings of this study suggest that concurrent with new initiatives aimed at reducing hospitalizations, hospital transfers declined between 2011 and 2017 among nursing home residents with advanced illnesses without increased mortality rates. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Financial Presentation of Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2021-02-01

Alzheimer disease and related dementias were associated with adverse financial events years prior to clinical diagnosis that become more prevalent after diagnosis and were most common in lower-education census tracts. 4 key findings →

Participants: 81 Evidence: low

Continued Use of Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine in Hospice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. JAMA Internal Medicine 2025-03-24

This cohort study examines the use of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine among older adults with dementia after admission into hospice care despite the medications’ limited clinical benefit following enrollment into hospice. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Use of medications of questionable benefit in advanced dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2014-11-01

Of 5406 nursing home residents with advanced dementia, 2911 (53.9%) received at least 1 medication with questionable benefit (range, 44.7% in the Mid-Atlantic census region to 65.0% in the West South Central census region). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The median age of participants was 79 years, 69% (31 of 45) were of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity, and 60% (27 of 45) had attended at least some college. 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