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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 10,826–10,850 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 434 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)
From OpenAlex; 13,658 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.
Adherence to the MIND diet was associated with better cognitive function at baseline and over 8 years of follow-up; however, MIND diet was not associated with 8-year cognitive trajectory. 4 key findings →
A predictive model based on 5 risk factors has been successfully validated for prediction of delirium at discharge in hospitalized older patients. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·BMJ open·2014-12-14
These research priorities identify crucial gaps in the existing evidence to address everyday practicalities in the management of the complexities of PD. 1 key finding →
A case-control study among 184 matched pairs of patients 65 years of age and older was undertaken to identify risk factors associated with falls and injuries in a long-term care facility in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1984-1985. 3 key findings →
This study confirms the high prevalence of psychotic symptoms in AD patients encountered in clinical practice and suggests that individual psychotic symptoms have different associations. 5 key findings →
In these high-risk patients, antidepressant drug treatment does not seem to be related to suicide attempts and death in adults but might be related in children and adolescents. 4 key findings →
Clinical findings in Parkinson's disease suggest that most patients progressively develop disabling non-levodopa-responsive symptoms during the course of the disease. 4 key findings →
People with dementia or delirium have increased mortality in the 6 months after hip fracture, but depression might take longer to have an effect. 2 key findings →
Delirium is an acute confusional state that is very prevalent in older patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). 4 key findings →
Nursing home residents dying with advanced dementia are not perceived as having a terminal condition, and most do not receive optimal palliative care. 1 key finding →
To evaluate the impact hospice enrollment has on the terminal care of patients with dementia and describe the symptom burden these patients experience, caregivers of dementia decedents were assessed in a mortality follow-back survey. 5 key findings →
Of 5406 nursing home residents with advanced dementia, 2911 (53.9%) received at least 1 medication with questionable benefit (range, 44.7% in the Mid-Atlantic census region to 65.0% in the West South Central census region). 3 key findings →
Among the elderly, prestroke dementia is a powerful independent predictor of in-hospital mortality after acute reperfusion therapy for stroke. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·PloS one·2015-09-10
Specialist palliative care is not initiated in almost half of the people for whom it could be beneficial, most frequently because physicians deem regular caregivers to be sufficiently skilled in addressing palliative care needs. 1 key finding →
This research, a descriptive qualitative analysis of self-defined serious illness goals, expands the knowledge of what goals are important beyond the physical-making existing disease-specific guidelines more holistic. 5 key findings →
Mount Carmel Health has developed an APCS and APCU integrated into the mainstream of each of its hospitals, providing an opportunity for a more appropriate focus on end-of-life issues for patients with poor prognoses, intense medical needs, and complex family issues. 2 key findings →
Of 3123 decedents, 465 (14.9%) had a primary hospice diagnosis of dementia and 943 (30.2%) had comorbid dementia and died of another illness. 5 key findings →
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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.