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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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 23,151–23,175 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 927 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)
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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Nursing older people·2011-10-26
IT WAS the 'gradual realisation' that what he had been taught about dementiain his nurse and social work training was simply 'not helpful' that prompted Colm Cunningham's interest in dementia research, he says. 3 key findings →
Close to two-thirds of all US nursing home residents have some type of cognitive impairment such as Alzheimer's disease, and the quality of care and quality of life of these people has long been called into question. 5 key findings →
Currently, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Common Format for nursing homes (NHs) accommodates voluntary reporting for 4 adverse events: falls with injury, pressure ulcers, medication errors, and infections. 5 key findings →
To better understand the process and outcomes of family involvement for long-term care residents with varying stages of dementia, we analyzed family and staff data for 467 residents of 24 residential care/assisted living and nursing-home settings. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2005-10
This article describes the prevalence, assessment, and treatment of, as well as characteristics associated with, mobility limitation in 343 residents with dementia in 45 assisted living facilities and nursing homes. 3 key findings →
Over the past two decades the collaborative care model within primary care has proved to be effective in improving care quality, efficiency, and outcomes for older adults suffering from dementia and depression. 5 key findings →
Dementia is a life-limiting disease without curative treatments but the data suggest that advanced dementia is not viewed as a terminal diagnosis by physicians. 2 key findings →
This paper will highlight some of the pertinent issues associated with palliative and end-of-life decision-making in relation to dementia. 1 key finding →
Although 80% of the deaths worldwide occur in middle- and low-income countries such as India, there is less awareness of end-of-life care (EOLC) for people with chronic, serious, progressive, or advanced life-limiting illnesses, including dementia. 1 key finding →
This article, the second of two, provides healthcare practitioners with an overview of best practice in palliative and end-of-life care, including nutrition, hydration, oral hygiene and pain management. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·BJPsych bulletin·2016-06
Since the Liverpool Care Pathway has been withdrawn in the UK, clinicians supporting the palliative needs of patients have faced further challenges, particularly for patients with dementia who are unable to go to a hospice owing to challenging behaviours. 5 key findings →
Hospice use over 2 weeks was associated with decreased hospital days (1-5 days overall, with greater decreases for longer hospice use) for all beneficiaries; spending was $900-$5,000 less for hospice use of 31-90 days for most beneficiaries not in nursing homes, except beneficiaries with Alzheimer's. Overall spending decreased with hospice use for beneficiaries in nursing homes with lung cancer only, with a $3,500 reduction. 4 key findings →
Adjunctive florbetapir-PET increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.008 years and increased costs by 36 compared to SCE alone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], 4,769). 5 key findings →
Care of dementia is extremely resource demanding and has a great impact on both the formal care systems and the situation for informal carers. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·1990-04
A study of 127 informal caregivers of Alzheimer's disease patients in Florida's Tampa Bay area was undertaken to determine the correlates of the five components of burden, as measured by the Cost of Care Index, a multidimensional measure of caregiving burden. 1 key finding →
Utilizing β-amyloid precursor protein (βAPP) as a substrate, α-, β-, and γ-secretases are responsible for sequential cleavage events leading to the formation of β-amyloid, the classic pathologic hallmark of Alzheimer’s Disease. 1 key finding →
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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.