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

Showing 3,051–3,075 of 3,858 studies published 2025 (page 123 of 155) · 27,780 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four major themes emerged: Unfolding Process of ADRD Discovery , Resilience is Multifaceted in Caregiving , Resilience is an Adaptive Process , and Cultural Heritage Shapes Caregivers' Resilience Experiences . 1 key finding →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

Twenty-eight caregivers completed the intervention, which increased caregiver mastery and decreased stress and burden. 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: low

The incidence of dementia declined by 26% percent (95% confidence interval: -26.2; -25.3), from 2020 per 100 000 insured individuals in 2015 to 1500 per 100 000 in 2022. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

From 1990 to 2021, the incidence, prevalence, and DALYs of ADOD have significantly risen both globally and in China, with the growth rates in China notably surpassing the global average. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Significant differences in 64% of engagement-related behaviors were found between groups, notably in torso movements, voice modulation, facial expressions, and concentration. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Multimodal sensing and machine learning for continuous monitoring of agitation in dementia

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

So far, we included 42 patients in our study, that were monitored for at least 7 consecutive days and nights, to form the largest database of its kind in the world. 5 key findings →

Participants: 42 Evidence: low

Informed consent is a critical ethical requirement in research, ensuring the protection of participants' rights and promoting their wellbeing and autonomy. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The calibration models for photopic lux and correlated color temperature demonstrated strong accuracy, with an adjusted R² of 0.858 and 0.982, respectively, ensuring reliable sensor measurements. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The attributes of concepts of social frailty and social isolation overlap, including being alone and having limited or less social activities, engagements or interactions. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

< .01). All patient groups were also impaired on AVLT encoding, TMT-B and TMT B/A. Social and non-social neurocognitive functions differed between groups, with specific impairments in processing speed in VaD, emotion recognition in bv-FTD and memory retrieval in AD, and memory encoding and cognitive control impaired in all three groups. 4 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 27,780 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