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 total of 5971 titles were reviewed and 60 studies were included in the analysis, 36 RCTs and 24 observational studies. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 5,971 Evidence: high

Among older Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure, there is a higher overall burden of comorbidity and greater prevalence of discordant comorbidity among the oldest old. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 201,130 Evidence: moderate

Delirium is an important independent prognostic determinant of hospital outcomes including new nursing home placement, death or new nursing home placement, and functional decline-even after controlling for age, gender, dementia, illness severity, and functional status. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 727 Evidence: moderate

We developed machine learning prediction models for post-operative delirium that performed better than chance and are comparable with traditional stepwise logistic regression. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 134 Evidence: moderate

Impact of Project ECHO Models of Medical Tele-Education: a Systematic Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Journal of general internal medicine 2019-09-04

The number of studies examining ECHO and ECHO-like models of medical tele-education has been modest compared with the scope and scale of implementation throughout the USA and internationally. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

GIM services care for a markedly heterogeneous population but the most common conditions were similar across 7 hospitals. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 223 Evidence: low

Central nervous system (CNS)-active medication use is common in older adults; however, there are limited data on utilization trends over time, differences in utilization amongst those with and without dementia, and modification of utilization surrounding dementia diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 444,587 Evidence: moderate

After adjusting for sociodemographics, comorbidities, and potential caregiving network, those with normal cognition received an average of 4.6 hours per week of informal care. 4 key findings →

Participants: 7,443 Evidence: low

The goal of this study was to determine the patient and caregiver characteristics associated with depression among caregivers of patients with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Our study included 467 caregivers. Most (92.5%) caregivers performed at least one health care interaction task. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 467 Evidence: low

Visual impairment and cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of general internal medicine 1991-03-01

Visual impairment is associated with both an increased risk and an increased clinical severity of Alzheimer's disease, but the increased risk may not be consistent with a progressive dose-response relationship. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Recovery rates are low, even among those with higher levels of pre-fracture functional status, and are worse for patients who are older, cognitively impaired, and who have multiple comorbidities. 3 key findings →

Participants: 733 Evidence: low

Improving transportation access and diabetes care may be important targets for enhancing mobility and reducing racial disparities in mobility. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Barriers to excellent end-of-life care for patients with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Journal of general internal medicine 2004-10-01

While great strides have been made recently in improving end-of-life care in the United States, people with dementia often die with inadequate pain control, with feeding tubes in place, and without the benefits of hospice care. 5 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