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 2,251–2,275 of 3,821 studies published 2025 (page 91 of 153) · 27,380 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; 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.

Factors associated with anxiety, stress, depression and burden among informal caregivers of patients with dementia: a cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. BMC Nursing 2025-11-11

A total of 414 caregivers participated. They exhibited normal intensity of depression, anxiety, and stress symptomatology. 5 key findings →

Participants: 414 Evidence: low

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

Understanding Digital Literacy of Persons With Dementia and Their Caregivers: A Scoping Review and an Evolutionary Concept Analysis of Empirical Studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Journal of Applied Gerontology 2025-06-19

This study constitutes both a scoping review and a concept analysis, as it systematically examines digital literacy across settings (home, assisted living facilities, and other long-term care facilities) in the context of persons with dementia and their caregivers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Minority Stress, Discrimination, and Health Outcomes Among LGBTQ+ Older Adult Dementia Caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. American Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias® 2025-11-01

Using LGBTQ+ Social Networks, Aging, and Policy Study Wave 3 data (N = 982), this study examines how caregiving for individuals with mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, and related dementias (MCI/ADRD) impacts everyday stressors, discrimination, and health outcomes among LGBTQ+ older adults in the Southern United States. 1 key finding →

Participants: 982 Evidence: low

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

Qualitative study exploring knowledge and attitudes towards dementia risk prediction, barriers to dementia services and service improvement recommendations with diverse populations in England

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. BMJ Open 2025-05-01

Participants possessed some knowledge about dementia but highlighted a need for better access to information about dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

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

Student satisfaction of a dementia education intervention: a cross-sectional study of the time for dementia programme

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. BMC Medical Education 2025-06-04

78% of students agreed or strongly agreed that Time for Dementia had increased their knowledge of psychosocial issues, and 69% enjoyed the programme. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

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

Predicting dementia in people with Parkinson’s disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. npj Parkinson s Disease 2025-05-13

Parkinson's disease (PD) exhibits a variety of symptoms, with approximately 25% of patients experiencing mild cognitive impairment and 45% developing dementia within ten years of diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Estimating the impact of risk factor reduction on dementia prevalence in New Zealand

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-07-01

The PIF for the total NZ population following a 15% risk factor reduction was 14.6% (95% confidence interval: 7.7-21.1) Modeled projections demonstrated prevalence reduction over time, from 1.0% at 10 years to 4.2% at 30 years. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The current status, trends, and challenges of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias in Asia (1990–2036)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Frontiers in Public Health 2025-06-10

In 2021, Asia experienced a 250.44% increase in prevalent cases, a 297.34% rise in mortality, and a 249.54% surge in DALYs for AD and other dementias compared to 1990. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Neurodegenerative disorders: A Holistic study of the explainable artificial intelligence applications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 2025-04-18

Neuro Degenerative Disorders (NDDs) involve progressive nerve cell loss, impacting functions like sensation, movement, memory, and cognition, posing life-threatening risks. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Developing an explainable machine learning and fog computing-based visual rating scale for the prediction of dementia progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Scientific Reports 2025-07-16

Recently, dementia research has primarily concentrated on using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to develop learning models in processing and analyzing brain data. 2 key findings →

Participants: 450 Evidence: low

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

Exploring Factors Related to Social Isolation Among Older Adults in the Predementia Stage Using Ecological Momentary Assessments and Actigraphy: Machine Learning Approach

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2025-06-23

Of the 99 participants, 43 were classified into the low social interaction frequency group, and 37 were classified into the high loneliness level group. 5 key findings →

Participants: 99 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 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