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 17,101–17,125 of 17,283 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 685 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.

[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

Performance on an Everyday Life Activity in Persons Diagnosed with Alcohol Dependency Compared to Healthy Controls: Relations between a Computerized Shopping Task and Cognitive and Clinical Variables†

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Alcohol and Alcoholism 2012-02-20

Performance on the shopping task significantly differentiated patients and healthy controls for several variables and, in particular, for total time. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A Perspective on Training for Academic Leadership in Geriatrics*

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1985-03-01

Overall, these numbers amount to a goal of approximately 1,300 physician faculty members in clinical departments and 1,300 other faculty for all of our nation's medical schools. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Framing outcomes of post-diagnostic psychosocial interventions in dementia: the Adaptation-Coping Model and adjusting to change

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Working with Older People 2017-02-27

The translated Adaptation-Coping (adjusting to change) Model provides a way for service users (people with dementia and families) to conceptualise their journey with dementia post-diagnosis, and potentially provides service providers and researchers with aims for treatment and support. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

3D Team Care Management Trial: Study Design Features and Participant Characteristics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2020-12-01

This clinical trial was designed in partnership with a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, with the goal of comparing two care management approaches for its MA policyholders age >65 living with cognitive vulnerability. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

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

The new paradigm in community-based care: Managing mindset and expectations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Journal of Emergencies Trauma and Shock 2018-01-01

Some of the considerations that need to be taken into account in coming to a decision include: Disease prevalence and burden in the country The existing health-care model and system The ratio of health-care providers to patient Cost and health-care funding in the country The current and projected health-care demand and needs The perception of the population on FP s and primary care providers versus that of specialists in hospitals and The networks and strengths of the primary care model in the country. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY HOME HEALTH CARE FOR PERSONS WITH DEMENTIA

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2024-12-01

Using multiple Medicare Public Use Files (PUF), including star ratings for home health quality of patient care (QoPC), home health care CAHPS survey (HHCAHPS), county-level ADRD prevalence, and Medicare FFS enrollment, we found that the median county-level number of home health agencies was 15 (IQR 8-29), star rating was 3.4 (IQR 3.1-3.7) for QoPC and 3.8 (IQR 3.5-4.0) for HHCAHPS. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Nexus Between Exposure to Natural Outdoor Environments and Cognitive Competence among Older Adults in China

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 2025-03-26

With a rapidly aging population and an increasing number of older people with cognitive impairment, a multitude of social problems could arise. 5 key findings →

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