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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 3,001–3,025 of 3,821 studies published 2025 (page 121 of 153) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

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; 12,859 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.

Ground robot technologies in wildfire risk reduction. The viewpoint of the fire service

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Progress in Disaster Science 2025-04-01

Fire service perceives the robot use in wildfire risk reduction more broadly than is reflected by currently developed disaster robots and existing disaster risk reduction concepts. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Factors of Vulnerability and Resilience of Persons with Disabilities During Disasters: Challenges and Strategies for Inclusive Risk Reduction

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management 2025-01-01

Persons with disabilities (PWDs) are among the most at-risk groups during disaster situations due to various physical, sensory, cognitive, and systemic challenges that hinder their ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from crises. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Integrating Ubuntu: embedding African philosophy into disaster risk reduction and management

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Frontiers in Sociology 2025-09-03

Rather than being the direct result of physical hazards, disasters emerge through socially constructed systems of vulnerability shaped by governance failures, structural inequalities, and historical injustices (Blaikie et al., 2014;Tierney, 2014;Gaillard, 2010). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A synthesis review of four literature reviews of disaster risk reduction education for children

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2025-05-13

This paper provides a critical interpretive synthesis review of fo++ur previously published literature reviews of disaster risk reduction (DRR) education for children. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A Scoping Review of Clinical Utility from the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Memory Index Score

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology 2025-08-18

ObjectiveThe Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Memory Index Score (MIS) is a supplemental assessment of memory composed of word list delayed free-recall followed by step-down category cued- and multiple-choice cued-recall. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Deep Learning Framework for Characterizing Tau‐PET Spatial Heterogeneity along AD Spectrum: A Self‐supervised Approach

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Three robustly differentiated AD subtypes (S1, S2, and S3) were identified, with 93% validation accuracy and Adjusted Mutual Information scores >0.89, each exhibiting distinct tau patterns. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Deep Learning Framework for Characterizing Tau‐PET Spatial Heterogeneity along AD Spectrum: A Self‐supervised Approach

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Three robustly differentiated AD subtypes (S1, S2, and S3) were identified, with 93% validation accuracy and Adjusted Mutual Information scores >0.89, each exhibiting distinct tau patterns. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Impact of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms on Caregiver Burden of People With Dementia With Lewy Bodies: A Multicentre Prospective Longitudinal Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Psychogeriatrics 2025-05-19

At the initial visit, the mean age of individuals with DLB was 80.8 (5.8) years; their mean Mini-Mental State Examination score was 20.6 (5.1). 5 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

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

Equitable formal care access: examining processes for Hispanic/Latino family dementia caregivers’ decision-making

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-07-25

Four main themes were identified: (1) reasons family caregivers may not choose formal care, (2) perceived benefits of formal care, (3) how family caregivers choose formal care, and (4) recommendations for delivering information about formal care options. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Supporting informal caregivers of dementia patients in China: action needed

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Frontiers in Psychology 2025-10-10

Beyond these practical challenges, caregivers often endure significant physical exhaustion and sleep deprivation from the unrelenting demands of caregiving, which can lead to chronic fatigue and deteriorating health (Liu et al., 2022; Mao et al., 2024). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing a Multicomponent Dementia Caregiver Program in a Complex Healthcare System

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. INQUIRY The Journal of Health Care Organization Provision and Financing 2025-03-12

The Tailored Activity Program (TAP), an intervention for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers, has been shown to reduce behavioral symptoms for PLWD and caregiver burden. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Music attuned technology care via eHealth (MATCH): A proof-of-concept study for community-dwelling people living with dementia and caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Digital Health 2025-05-01

Participants found MATCH acceptable (combined AES median score of 28, range 25-34) and useful (SUS median score of 73.5, range 55-100). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Rural Health Disparities in Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias Biomarker Testing

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

After a 30-minute educational session, participants showed greater positivity toward an ADRD diagnosis and increased confidence in discussing early detection. 5 key findings →

Participants: 25 Evidence: low

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

Convening Hispanic/Latino Caregiving Advisors for Inclusive Research in Dementia Palliative Care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Journal of Palliative Medicine 2025-01-28

Key reflections from advisor meetings guided cultural adaptation: lived experiences on dementia caregiving; patient, caregiver, and clinician interactions in the health care system; and limited knowledge and misconceptions of palliative care. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

↑ 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