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.

Longitudinal associations of pain and cognitive decline in community-dwelling older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Psychology and aging 2022-07-28

Pain is inversely associated with cognitive function in older adults, but the effects of pain on cognitive decline are not fully clear. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 688 Evidence: high

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effects of 131 randomized controlled trials, published between 2006 and mid-2018, for dementia caregivers with community-dwelling care-recipients. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Providing care for a frail older adult has been described as a stressful experience that may erode psychological well-being and physical health of caregivers. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Meta-analysis was used to examine pooled parameter estimates of 9 active compared with 6 control conditions of the Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer's Caregiver Health (REACH) project at 6 months on caregiver burden and depressive symptoms. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The effects of an engaged lifestyle on cognitive vitality: a field experiment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Psychology and aging 2008-12-01

Experimental studies on cognitive training have suggested that the effects of experience are narrow in augmenting or maintaining cognitive abilities, while correlational studies report a wide range of benefits of an engaged lifestyle, including increased longevity, resistance to dementia, and enhanced cognitive flexibility. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This meta-analysis pooled 84 studies comparing family caregivers to demographically similar non-caregivers on stress, depression, well-being, physical health, and self-efficacy. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Decline in life satisfaction in old age: longitudinal evidence for links to distance-to-death

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Psychology and aging 2008-03-01

Using 12-year longitudinal data from deceased participants of the Berlin Aging Study (N = 414; age 70-103 years, at first occasion; M = 87 years, SD = 8.13), the authors examined whether and how old and very old individuals exhibit terminal decline in reported life satisfaction at the end of life. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 414 Evidence: moderate

The objective of the study was to examine variability across multiple prospective cohort studies in level and rate of cognitive decline by race/ethnicity and years of education. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,115 Evidence: moderate

This study aimed to examine the therapeutic mechanism of the benefit-finding therapeutic (BFT) intervention that used cognitive reappraisal and alternative thinking to construct positive aspects of caregiving (PAC), in a cluster-randomized controlled trial for Alzheimer caregivers. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Cognitive and sensory declines in old age: gauging the evidence for a common cause

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Psychology and aging 2009-03-01

Resource accounts of behavioral aging postulate that age-associated impairments within and across intellectual and sensory domains reflect, in part, a common set of senescent alterations in the neurochemistry and neuroanatomy of the aging brain. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 516 Evidence: moderate

The Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer's Cargiver Health (REACH) project was designed to test promising interventions for enhancing family caregiving for persons with dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Revised Memory and Behavior Problems Checklist (RMBPC), a 24-item, caregiver-report measure of observable behavioral problems in dementia patients, provides 1 total score and 3 subscale scores for patient problems (memory-related, depression, and disruptive behaviors) and parallel scores for caregiver reaction. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Previous studies have suggested that 4 latent constructs (depressed affect, well-being, interpersonal problems, somatic symptoms) underlie the item responses on the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,183 Evidence: low

Use it or lose it? Wii brain exercise practice and reading for domain knowledge

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Psychology and aging 2010-12-01

We investigated the training effects and transfer effects associated with 2 approaches to cognitive activities (so-called brain training) that might mitigate age-related cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Participants: 78 Evidence: low

Neighborhood disadvantage and subjective cognitive function among older Black women

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Psychology and aging 2025-07-03

Black Americans a have higher risk of cognitive impairment relative to other racial/ethnic groups, and Black women have the highest prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias; however, the mechanisms underlying cognitive impairment are poorly understood. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

↑ 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