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

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1,376–1,400 of 1,404 studies published 2022 (page 56 of 57) · 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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

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.

[Diagnosing Alzheimer's dementia - a playground for academics or a sensible clinical measure?]

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) 2022-04-25

The number of dementia cases continues to increase with Alzheimer's disease as the leading cause. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

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

The Differential Diagnosis and Treatment of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. The Journal of clinical psychiatry 2022-12-26

Identifying patients at risk for developing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer disease (AD) remains challenging in clinical practice, even as scientific understanding of dementia advances generally. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Data-Driven Food Desert Metric to Understand Access to Grocery Stores Using Chi-Square Automatic Interaction Detector Decision Tree Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2022

A food desert is a geographic area lacking spatial and socioeconomic access to healthy foods. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The Medicolegal and Ethical Dimensions of Physician Prescription Reluctance

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Continuum (Minneapolis, Minn.) 2022-06-01

This article addresses the potential legal ramifications for neurologists caring for patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) who elect neither to prescribe aducanumab nor to refer patients with AD for treatment with aducanumab. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Cochlear Implants Now More Accessible to Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. The Hearing Journal 2022-12-17

Benefits Beyond Auditory Rehabilitation Research conducted by Frank Lin and colleagues found that individuals with untreated mild, moderate, and severe hearing loss had, respectively, a twofold, threefold, and fivefold increased risk of dementia compared with individuals with normal hearing. 4 Research suggests that early auditory rehabilitation is important for people of all ages, including older adults, as it can provide benefits and improvements beyond hearing ability such as cognitive function and mitigation of depression. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Short-Term Impacts of COVID-19 Public Health Regulation on Consumer Food Purchases: A Case Study From a Grocery Store in Montana

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2022-02-01

The mitigation measures (e.g., lockdown policies) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic impacted food systems in unprecedented ways, in both scope and immediacy. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Etiology, risk factors, treatments and current status of Alzheimer's disease in Mexico

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Gaceta medica de Mexico 2022-01-01

Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder whose etiology continues to be discussed, to the point that there are different hypotheses that seek to clarify it, in addition to the fact that, given its multifactorial nature, there are different risk factors associated with its development. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

[Alzheimer's disease-Which substances are at present in phase III studies?]

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Der Nervenarzt 2022-03-14

The recent approval of aduhelm/aducanumab by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 raised hopes that further substances against Alzheimer's disease might be approved in the near future. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

IMPROVING DEMENTIA CARE THROUGH DIGITAL CAREGIVER EMPOWERMENT: DURABLE CLAIMS‐BASED OUTCOMES DEMONSTRATED IN A PRAGMATIC REAL‐WORLD TRIAL

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2022-12-01

Empowering family caregivers of patients with ADOD in a personalized DCEP provides durable reductions in patient hospitalizations and medical costs. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Aducanumab Use in Symptomatic Alzheimer Disease Evidence in Focus [RETIRED]: A Report of the AAN Guidelines Subcommittee

⚠ Retracted — do not rely on it alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Neurology 2022-02-23

The author panel systematically reviewed available clinical trial data detailing aducanumab use in individuals with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

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

↑ 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