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
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 12,401–12,425 of 17,283 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 497 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)
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.
The primary analysis demonstrated significant improvements in multiple episodic memory measures across both intervention groups, with no significant differences observed between groups. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·BMJ Open·2025-12-01
Although individuals with dementia who reside in nursing homes are particularly susceptible to developing delirium, this condition is rarely recognised in these settings. 1 key finding →
Twenty-four studies were identified and confirmed that patients with dementia frequently resort to the ED near the end of life, frequently more than once in their last year of life. 3 key findings →
The analysis yielded three categories and nine subcategories describing surrogate decision-making practices regarding end-of-life care for people with dementia: (a) typical circumstances of end-of-life care planning, (b) expected roles of key personnel and related challenges and (c) important considerations. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·BMC Geriatrics·2025-05-02
The implementation of a transmural model of early palliative care for patients with advanced dementia requires the coordination between clinicians in the tertiary care setting and community, together with health information technologists. 2 key findings →
We included 21 ACP RCTs. Trials included 103 outcome measures (39 primary and 64 secondary), of which 11% measured process, 14% measured action, 49% measured healthcare, and 26% measured quality of care. 5 key findings →
Our data suggests that microglial reactivity may play a role in hippocampal atrophy; potentially contributing to the increasingly recognized interaction between vascular and neurodegenerative pathology. 3 key findings →
Poststroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) refers to any level of cognitive decline occurring after a stroke, ranging from mild to severe impairments, while PSCI with dementia describes a more severe form where the cognitive decline significantly affects daily functioning and meets the clinical criteria for dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·JAR life·2026-06-17
Anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (lecanemab and donanemab) represent the first disease-modifying therapies for early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (AD)- Italy's National Health Service (SSN) must determine whether to include these therapies within Essential Levels of Care (LEA), requiring reimbursement across all regions. 5 key findings →
Recent evidence suggests that ocular testing holds promise as a non-invasive and cost-effective method for the early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Spending at end of life (EOL) accounts for a large and growing share of healthcare expenditures in the US, and often reflects aggressive care with questionable value for dying patients. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2024-07-05
There are many studies of medical costs in late life in general, but nursing home residents' needs and the costs of external medical services and interventions outside of nursing home services are less well described. 4 key findings →
Home-based medical care (HBMC) delivers physician or advanced practice provider-led medical services for patients in private residences and domiciliary settings (eg, assisted living facilities, group/boarding homes). 2 key findings →
Hospitalized patients with dementia transitioning to post-acute care may be particularly vulnerable to changes in post-acute care utilization driven by payment reforms; however, use of post-acute care in this population is incompletely understood. 3 key findings →
Each year, the French independent bulletin Prescrire publishes a list of medicines, "Drugs to avoid", that should not be used in clinical practice as their risk-to-benefit ratio is unfavourable. 1 key finding →
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 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.