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

30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 6,651–6,675 of 17,283 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 267 of 692) · 30,580 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; 16,054 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.

Everyday ethics in assisted living facilitites: a framework for assessing resident-focused issues

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of gerontological nursing 2005-01

This article describes and illustrates a framework that may be used when assessing the moral basis of everyday issues that can affect residents of assisted living facilities. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The Effectiveness of Palliative Care Interventions in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Systematic Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of personalized medicine 2024-06-28

The increasing elderly population is driving higher utilization rates of long-term care facilities, where residents often have multiple chronic diseases, making them potential candidates for palliative care. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Accuracy of Caregiver Proxy Reports of Home Care Service Use

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society 2016-12-27

Although much of the research on service use by older adults with dementia relies on proxy reports by informal caregivers, little research assesses the accuracy of these reports, and that which does exist, does not focus on home care services. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Adopting a 'community of practice' between palliative and dementia care nurses

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987) 2024-09-23

Dementia usually occurs as a result of brain disease and, while it is usually chronic or progressive in nature, it has not traditionally been conceptualised as a terminal or life-limiting syndrome. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Racial and ethnic disparities in potentially inappropriate medication use in patients with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2024-08-21

Compared to White participants, Black, Hispanic, and Asian participants reported taking fewer total medications (incidence rate ratio [IRR] ± standard error[SE] = 0.903 ± 0.017, 0.875 ± 0.021, and 0.912 ± 0.041, respectively, all p < 0.01). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Perspective on the "African American participation in Alzheimer disease research: Effective strategies" workshop, 2018

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2020-08-17

The Washington University School of Medicine Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center's "African American Participation in Alzheimer Disease Research: Effective Strategies" Workshop convened to address a major limitation of the ongoing scientific progress regarding Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD): participants in most ADRD research programs overwhelmingly have been limited to non-Hispanic white persons, thus precluding knowledge as to how ADRD may be represented in non-white individuals. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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    Where this research is being discussed: events