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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 201–225 of 1,426 studies scoring ≤ 29 out of 100 (page 9 of 58) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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; 12,859 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.

Discrimination, Stress, and Health Across the Life Course

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

These findings highlight the variability in the cumulative patterning of racial discrimination and stress among midlife and older Black adults, providing insights into how these factors impact health outcomes in middle to late life. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Few Alzheimer’s Patients Get State-of-Art Care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Psychiatric News 2001-04-20

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Clinical & Research NewsFull AccessFew Alzheimer’s Patients Get State-of-Art CareJim RosackJim RosackSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:20 Apr 2001https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.36.8.0042Preliminary data suggest that a huge treatment gap exists in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, with as many as 65 percent of patients with the progressive and terminal disorder going undiagnosed and, therefore, untreated. 5 key findings →

Participants: 125 Evidence: low

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

Cross-boundary Cancer Studies at the University of Tokyo: Food and Cancer

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014-02-01

He has been actively delivering lectures on the prevention of diseases associated with adult lifestyle habits and the preservation of the global environment via ‘shokuiku,’ or food education. 3 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

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

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 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 Free full text

The End of Life Option Act: Important Considerations for Pharmacists as California Implements Physician Aid in Dying

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Journal of Contemporary Pharmacy Practice 2017-09-01

The law has safeguards intended to ensure that patients are acting autonomously, including a 15-day waiting period between two requests, the requirement that patients meet privately with their physicians to confirm they are acting on their own, and the requirement that patients sign a form within 48 hours of taking the aid-in-dying drug to indicate that it is their choice. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

From Attitudes to Action, Primary Care Alzheimer's Detection: How Knowledge, Confidence, and Clinic Capacity Predict Actual Screening and Referral Behavior

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Medical Research Archives 2026-01-01

However, knowledge alone does not consistently predict screening behavior. 4 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

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

[O5–03–03]: LEVERAGING MEDICARE CLAIMS TO CHARACTERIZE DIAGNOSTIC PATHWAYS IN ALZHEIMER's DISEASE

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2017-07-01

Real-world, administrative claims data is uniquely suited to help characterize the journey of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients from the onset of disease symptoms through diagnosis and beyond. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Selected Articles from This Issue

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 2020-10-01

Overall cancer mortality rates were 12.3% higher in persistent poverty counties versus all others, and 9.6% higher in persistent versus current poverty counties, with even greater disparities observed for specific cancer sites. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A Review of Clinical Biomarker Insights: Advances in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Early Alzheimer

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Global Journal of Medical Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Update 2025-04-15

The research focuses on the use of biomarkers to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in living individuals. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Structure-guided Docking of Benzene-1,3-Disulfonic Acid to the ApoE-HSPG Binding Site at Arginine 136 as a Christchurch-mimetic Therapeutic Strategy for Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Clinical Neuropharmacology 2025-09-30

Benzene-1,3-disulfonic acid exhibited strong binding to the Arg136-containing pocket with a top docking score of -5.93 kcal/mol and an estimated inhibition constant (Ki) of 44.6 µmol. 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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