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 21,526–21,550 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 862 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)

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.

Longitudinal Structural MRI-Based Deep Learning And Radiomics Features For Predicting Alzheimer\\\\\\\'s Disease Progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) 2026-01-01

Alzheimer\\\'s disease (AD), the leading cause of dementia worldwide, affects more than 55 million individuals and gen-erates annual healthcare costs exceeding two trillion USD [14]. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

EARLY STAGES OF ALZHEIMERS DETECTION

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) 2025-11-20

The Early Stages of Alzheimer’s Detection project focuses on identifying signs of Alzheimer’s disease at the earliest possible stage using advanced machine learning and medical imaging techniques. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

EARLY STAGES OF ALZHEIMERS DETECTION

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) 2025-11-20

The Early Stages of Alzheimer’s Detection project focuses on identifying signs of Alzheimer’s disease at the earliest possible stage using advanced machine learning and medical imaging techniques. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Balancing Caregiving and Self-Care: Exploring Mental Health Needs of Alzheimer's and Dementia Caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2025-10-16

Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) are progressive neurodegenerative conditions that impair memory, thought processes, and functioning. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Latino Caregiver Experiences With Dementia Care and Healthcare Navigation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2025-10-06

We identified two main themes (each with subthemes) that influence Latino dementia caregiver experiences with healthcare: (1) caregiving and understanding of dementia shaped by individual, family, and social factors (subthemes: Caregiver's own understanding of dementia; Lack of support and understanding from family; Latino cultural perspectives on dementia); and (2) navigating formal services amid gaps in cultural alignment and support (subthemes: Trial and error: education and resource gaps; Cultural tension with healthcare). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Gender differences in spousal caregiver strain and paid service use among dementia caregivers in rural Appalachia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Frontiers in Public Health 2025-08-13

Spousal caregivers of persons living with dementia (PLwD) often experience high overload and loneliness due to the intensive and ongoing nature of caregiving for their partner. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Conditions for Nutritional Care of Elderly Individuals with Dementia and Their Caregivers: An Exploratory Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-03-13

Adults of 78.8 years on average, with low to middle socio-economic status, low education levels, and multiple comorbidities, have adverse well-being and support conditions, except for the spiritual component. 5 key findings →

Participants: 73 Evidence: low

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

Ethical issues associated with assistive technologies for persons living with dementia and their caregivers – An overview of reviews

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Dementia 2025-05-15

Assistive technologies hold significant potential to enhance the quality of life for persons with dementia and their caregivers by addressing key concerns related to safety, independence, and social inclusion. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Digital Dementia Education and Training for Informal Carers: A Scoping Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2025-05-28

The findings revealed three core areas: (a) types of digital tools used, including online platforms, video conferencing, mobile applications and SMS services; (b) educational domains addressed, such as knowledge and skills, psychological support, communication and social interaction, and environmental and technological adaptation; and (c) implementation strategies and outcomes, highlighting personalisation, cultural sensitivity and technological adaptability, which improved knowledge, emotional well-being and carer self-efficacy. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A scoping review of interventions for Hispanic caregivers of persons living with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Behavior & Socioeconomics of Aging 2025-10-21

Dementia disproportionately affects Hispanic/Latino caregivers, and while some interventions exist, their consideration of intersectional factors remains unclear. 1 key finding →

Participants: 41 Evidence: low

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

Disparities in Access to Deep Brain Stimulation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery 2025-10-09

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a well-established treatment for several neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions, including movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, and dystonia, as well as Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome, epilepsy, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Bridging gaps in dementia care across southeastern Europe: Regional challenges, cross-border innovation, and implementation barriers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Journal of Public Health Research 2025-07-01

Dementia is a growing challenge in Southeastern and Western Europe, with aging trends projected to accelerate in the former region. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Age at First Childbirth and Dementia Risk: A Cross‐Sectional Ecological Analysis of Female Prevalence, Sex Disparities, and Public Health Implications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Health Science Reports 2025-08-01

= 126). Subgroup analyses revealed stronger associations in LMICs than in high-income countries. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Associations between joint air pollution exposure, mental health, and physical health and dementia incidence in an aging U.S. cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series B 2025-12-30

We found significant associations between ADRD risk and particulate matter <2.5 µm in diameter and nitrogen dioxide in women. 5 key findings →

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