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
30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 15,176–15,200 of 16,956 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 608 of 679)· 30,180 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; 15,654 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 number of US adults ages sixty-five and older who are living with dementia is substantial and expected to grow, raising concerns about the demands that will be placed on family members and other unpaid caregivers. 1 key finding →
This article reviews the significance of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) to practitioners and researchers in clinical gerontology, more than 10 years after the scale was introduced to the scientific community. 1 key finding →
The purpose of this study, conducted in three phases, was to develop a clinically useful observational tool (i.e., the Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors With Limited Ability to Communicate [PACSLAC]) to assess pain in seniors with severe dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Psychiatry research·2015-04-14
The Unmet Needs Model states that problem behaviors of people with dementia result from unmet needs stemming from a decreased ability to communicate those needs and to provide for oneself. 3 key findings →
A research psychiatrist using a standardized interview found that 94% of a random sample of residents at a large, intermediate-care nursing home had mental disorders according to DSM-III criteria. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·CNS drugs·2001-01-01
Older adults represent an ever-growing proportion of the population of the industrialised nations, with a corresponding increase in the numbers of patients with dementing disorders. 3 key findings →
A simple, completely objective scoring system for a clock completion test has been developed which involves only the number of digits placed in the fourth quadrant of a pre-drawn circle. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Sleep·1997-01-01
We measured 24-hour circadian-rhythm patterns of activity and sleep/wake activity in a group of nursing-home patients (58 women and 19 men with a mean age of 85.7 years). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2005-04-01
An analysis of interaction terms in the Cox regression model found that those individuals who utilized in-home help services earlier in their dementia caregiving careers were more likely to delay institutionalization. 1 key finding →
Life's Journey If life is indeed a journey, then poetry must be the map that reveals all its topographic possibilitiesellipsis while science is the compass that keeps us from getting lost. -R. T. Bartus, Simple Words for Complex Lives, (c) 1998 In the nearly 20 years since the cholinergic hypothesis was initially formulated, significant progress has been achieved. 2 key findings →
Despite intensive research efforts over the past few decades, the mechanisms underlying the etiology of sporadic Alzheimer's disease (AD) remain unknown. 1 key finding →
The ESPEN Guideline on Ethical Aspects of Artificial Nutrition and Hydration is focused on the adult patient and provides a critical summary for physicians and caregivers. 2 key findings →
An exponential rise in the number of older prisoners is creating new and costly challenges for the criminal justice system, state economies, and communities to which older former prisoners return. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Neuro-Signals·2005-01-01
The two major neurodegenerative diseases Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) are characterised by low levels in the brain of the neurotransmitters acetylcholine (ACh) and dopamine (DA), respectively. 5 key findings →
In 2009, nearly 66 million Americans (three in 10 U.S. households) reported at least one person providing unpaid care as a family caregiver. 2 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%),
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.