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 22,351–22,375 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 895 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.

Breast cancer screening among Medicare Advantage enrollees with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. BMC Health Services Research 2024-03-05

Mammogram utilization was 16% higher (Prevalence Ratio [PR] 1.16; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.29) among Medicare Advantage enrollees with dementia, compared to their counterparts in fee-for-service Medicare. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

HEDIS Measures for Geriatric Care Quality: Evidence, Equity, and a Governance Framework

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) 2023-01-30

The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set provides the dominant quality measurement framework for Medicare Advantage and commercial health plans, yet HEDIS lacks validated geriatric-specific quality indicators, equitable measurement standards for diverse older adult populations, and governance controls calibrated to the high-stakes Star Ratings financial incentive context. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Hospitalization and Emergency Department Visits for Severe Hypoglycemia among U.S. Adults with Diabetes and Serious Comorbid Conditions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Diabetes 2018-06-22

Diabetes care guidelines recommend more relaxed glycemic targets for patients with specific chronic conditions because they are thought to have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, limited life expectancy, and/or high clinical complexity. 3 key findings →

Participants: 216,839 Evidence: low

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

Interethnic Differences in Dementia Epidemiology: Global and Asia-Pacific Perspectives

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders 2010-01-01

The burden of dementia will continue to rise globally, particularly in developing countries, many of which lie in the Asia-Pacific region. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Population Surveillance of Dementia Mortality

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2011-04-20

Geographic and temporal variation in occurrence of dementia within the US has received little attention despite its importance for generation of new etiologic hypotheses and health services research. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Evaluating Sociodemographic Bias in an Artificial Intelligence Algorithm to Detect Cognitive Impairment in Electronic Health Records

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

Our study highlights the potential of Decipher‐AI for screening undiagnosed cognitive impairment in primary care. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Lecanemab adoption and geographic variation among patients with diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's dementia in Medicare fee‐for‐service beneficiaries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Patients (N = 2,512) receiving lecanemab infusion had a mean age of 75.4 (standard deviation = 5.7) years as compared to 80.8 (8.9) years in patients with MCI/AD not receiving the infusion. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,512 Evidence: low

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

Impact of race/ethnicity and area deprivation index on Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders biomarkers in the POINTER Cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

The analyses of the community‐based U.S. POINTER indicate that AA/B individuals present differences in AD and related dementia biomarker values. nHW had higher fully adjusted cognitive scores. 5 key findings →

Participants: 644 Evidence: low

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

Risk Factors for Cognitive Impairment and Dementia Differ Across Classification Codes Evaluating Disadvantaged and Rural Regions in a Kentucky Appalachian Cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Diagnostic classifications, mean age, and education did not differ significantly across classifications. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

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

Neighborhood Deprivation, Subjective and Objective Cognitive Impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

Neighborhood deprivation is associated with Future research should investigate the possible mechanisms of this association to identify optimal interventions at the neighborhood level. 5 key findings →

Participants: 596 Evidence: low

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

Geographic Variation in ADRD Prevalence and Mortality and Their Association with Social Vulnerability across US Counties: A Spatial Epidemiological Analysis Using NORC and CDC SVI Data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra 2026-04-02

Counties had a mean prevalence of 65.3 per 1,000 (SD 15.5) for highly likely ADRD and 123.5 per 1,000 (SD 27.0) for all determinations. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,108 Evidence: low

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

The Mississippi Healthy Aging Data Report: Tools to Advance Health Equity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Journal of Public Health in the Deep South 2024-08-09

The Mississippi Healthy Aging Data Report (see healthyagingdatareports.org) has helped policymakers, service providers, and advocates better understand the status of healthy aging in Mississippi. 5 key findings →

Participants: 663,581 Evidence: low

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

Social determinants of pharmacological dementia management: results from IDEAS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

We used multilevel logistic regression with a random site intercept to test whether the probability of change in management associated with social determinants, race/ADI interactions with amyloid‐positivity, comorbidities, and clinical setting, adjusting for demographics. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Alzheimer’s Disease and related dementias prevalence higher in Appalachian counties within Central Appalachia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

There is a consistent difference between Appalachian and non‐Appalachian counties, with Appalachian counties having relatively higher ADRD prevalence (in the range of 2.0‐3.0% times higher) than non‐Appalachian counties. 4 key findings →

Participants: 255 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