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 4,526–4,550 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 182 of 1086) · 28,180 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.

Social isolation and loneliness are increasingly recognized as detrimental risk factors for brain health. 3 key findings →

Participants: 383,421 Evidence: low

Modeling estimated single-year exposure, each 1 μg/m3 higher ambient PM2.5 was associated with 67% higher adjusted risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.669, 95% credible interval [CI]: 1.298, 2.136) and 75% higher adjusted risk of incident MCI (HR = 1.746, 95% CI: 1.518, 2.032). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,572 Evidence: moderate

Recent studies suggested that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) was related to a higher risk of dementia incidence or hospitalizations in western populations, but the evidence is limited in Asian cities. 3 key findings →

Participants: 66,820 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the leading cause of dementia worldwide, imposes a growing clinical and societal burden, yet no therapies have been proven to alter its progression despite decades of intensive research. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

White matter hyperintensities (WMH) - - areas of increased signal appearing on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging - - are associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) risk and progression in late onset and genetic forms. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The effect of apathy on quality of life and caregiver burden in patients with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Cognitive neuropsychiatry 2025-01-15

The mean age of the patients was 73.1 ± 11.7, and the time since diagnosis was 3.9 ± 3.1 years; 64.8% had Alzheimer's type dementia, and 53.4% (n = 47) had mild dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 47 Evidence: low

Advance care planning and outpatient visits among older adults across cognitive levels

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Aging and health research 2023-10-12

Advance care planning (ACP) can help reduce end-of-life care challenges for persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia and their care partners. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 17,698 Evidence: low

Advance Care Planning Among Adult Patients and Their End-of-Life Care Preferences

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Omega 2022-12-02

To explore people's intentions to opt for a good death when planning for their end-of-life care, this study examined the type of end-of-life care preferred by patients receiving advance care planning (ACP) consulting services for five specified clinical and disability conditions and possible factors affecting their decision-making. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,303 Evidence: low

Outcomes for acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) treatment included (1) any new AChEI treatment during follow-up, and (2) persistence of treatment during follow-up categorized into: intermittent treatment (< 50% follow-ups reporting treatment), persistent (≥50% follow-ups), and always treated. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The ASDIR for ADRD was higher for women (17.0 per 1000 person-years) than for men (15.3) and varied across African Americans (22.9 in women, 21.5 in men), Native Hawaiians (19.3, 19.4), Latinos (16.8, 14.7), Whites (16.4, 15.5), Japanese Americans (14.8, 13.8), and Filipinos (12.5, 9.7). 5 key findings →

Participants: 16,410 Evidence: moderate

The findings may help clinicians identify athletes who are at risk for worse impairments after a concussion due to preinjury sleep difficulties. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 348 Evidence: moderate

This study directly compared four different commercial/lab p-tau217 blood tests (Lumipulse, ALZpath, Johnson & Johnson, and NULISA) in 344 people from two community cohorts, most of whom were cognitively normal or had only mild changes. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 344 Evidence: moderate

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

CMS GUIDE Model: Lessons Learned by an Established Track Program at End of Year One

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-31

This paper reports first-year, real-world results from one of the 96 'Established Track' organizations in the CMS GUIDE dementia care model, which launched nationally on July 1, 2024. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 158 Evidence: early

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

In this national case-control study of nursing home residents with ADRD receiving hospice care, initiation of benzodiazepine or antipsychotic use was associated with increased 180-day mortality. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control Participants: 139,103 Evidence: moderate

The majority of participants were female and were taking concomitant psychotropic medications (antidepressants and antipsychotics) at baseline. 3 key findings →

Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 75 Evidence: early

It was not possible to demonstrate significant differences on the co-primary clinical endpoints (ADAS-cog 11 and ADCS-ADL 23 ) at 52 weeks due to symptomatic activity in the control arm. 5 key findings →

Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 598 Evidence: null result

Diet Quality and Dementia Risk in Older Adults With Alzheimer Pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-06-01

Over a mean follow-up of 8.4 years (range, Conclusions and relevance This cohort study of older adults found that adherence to a dietary pattern with lower inflammatory potential was associated with lower dementia risk among individuals with AD pathology and broader neurobiological risk. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,865 Evidence: early

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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