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 9,876–9,900 of 17,283 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 396 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.

Multidomain interventions for prevention of dementia: Achievements, challenges and future perspectives

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Geriatrics and gerontology international/Geriatrics & gerontology international 2025-06-17

With the aging of the population, the number of persons with dementia is expected to increase worldwide, making the establishment of preventive strategies for dementia an urgent issue. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Plant-Based Diet and Risk of Iron-deficiency Anemia. A Review of the Current Evidence and Implications for Preventive Strategies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Current Nutrition Reports 2025-06-17

Non-heme iron, which is more abundant in plant-based sources, poses challenges about its lower bioavailability and this could contribute to an increased risk of anemia in these populations. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Modifiable Lifestyle Risk Factors and Strategies for Slowing the Progression of Age-Related Macular Degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Vision 2025-02-23

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a multifactorial disorder influenced by genetic, lifestyle, nutritional, and systemic health factors that contribute to increased oxidative stress and chronic inflammation in the retina. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia From Electroencephalography Signals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 2025-01-01

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are the most burdensome neurodegenerative disorders in older populations as they pose significant challenges because of subtle cognitive decline in the initial stages. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Test–retest reliability of the computer-based cognitive assessment tool for community-dwelling older adults in Japan: The Otassha study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Digital Health 2025-01-01

CompBased-CAT demonstrated good test–retest reliability, with an ICC of 0.64 among all participants, which increased to 0.74 among participants with MCI over a 2-month period, indicating its potential for monitoring cognitive function through repeated assessments. 3 key findings →

Participants: 80 Evidence: low

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

Neuropsychological tests and machine learning: identifying predictors of MCI and dementia progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research 2025-03-12

The tests qualitatively and statistically associated to a cognitive decline are MMSE, FAB, BSTR, AM, and VSF, of which at least three were considered the most informative also by machine learning. 73% average accuracy was obtained in the diagnosis prediction on three subsets of original and external data. 3 key findings →

Participants: 281 Evidence: low

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

Multi-modal data analysis for early detection of alzheimer’s disease and related dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease 2025-12-01

Until recently, accurate early detection of clinical symptoms associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD) has been difficult. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Enhancing automated detection and classification of dementia in individuals with cognitive impairment using artificial intelligence techniques

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Scientific Reports 2025-07-09

Dementia is a degenerative and chronic disorder, increasingly prevalent among older adults, posing significant challenges in providing appropriate care. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

AI approaches for phenotyping Alzheimer's disease and related dementias using electronic health records

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions 2025-04-01

score 0.8323, although only the AUC was statistically significantly different) and other AI-based models. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,000 Evidence: moderate

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

Artificial Intelligence–Enhanced Multi-Algorithm R Shiny Application for Predictive Modeling and Analytics: Case Study of Alzheimer Disease Diagnostics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. JMIR Aging 2025-11-05

The Neural Network classifier achieved an accuracy of 91% with a 95% CI ranging from 0.79-0.97 and an AUC of 94%, on the test set after identifying the most significant features for AD prediction. 5 key findings →

Participants: 174 Evidence: low

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

Impact of Kolb’s experiential learning theory-based nursing on caregiver burden and psychological state of caregivers of dementia patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Open Medicine 2025-01-01

Kolb’s experiential learning theory has a positive impact on alleviating the caregiving burden and reducing anxiety and depression among family caregivers of dementia patients. 1 key finding →

Participants: 55 Evidence: low

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

Sense of Coherence and Caregiver Burden Among Informal Caregivers of People with Dementia in China: The Mediating Role of Coping Strategies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Psychology Research and Behavior Management 2025-06-01

The caregiver burden was found at a moderate to severe level with the average score of 58.14(12.84). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Relationships Among Caregiver Burden, Psychological Flexibility Processes, and Depressive Symptoms in Family Caregivers of People with Dementia: Path Analyses

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Journal of Applied Gerontology 2025-01-24

This study examined relationships among caregiver burden, depressive symptoms, and key processes related to psychological flexibility (experiential avoidance, cognitive fusion, values-driven actions, and mindfulness) in 157 family caregivers of individuals with dementia in the United States. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Designing for those who are Overlooked - Investigating long-term Impacts of Social Robotics for People with Advanced Dementia, Caregivers and Relatives in a Secured Care Environment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2025-01-10

This paper presents the results of a long-term exploratory study that examined the social and emotional impact of using a social robot with a variety of applications to promote activities for people with advanced dementia and their caregivers. 2 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

↑ 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