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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,076–1,100 of 1,787 studies · tagged Diagnosis(page 44 of 72)· 27,780 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; 13,259 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.
Cholinesterase inhibitors with additional nicotinic activity, such as galantamine, may be useful in PD patients with dementia (PDD) since stimulation of nicotinic receptors may prevent the down-regulation that is likely to accompany cholinesterase inhibition and facilitate dopamine release in the striatum. 4 key findings →
Oxidative stress and energy depletion are characteristic biochemical hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD), thus antioxidants with positive effects on glucose metabolism such as thioctic (alpha-lipoic) acid should exert positive effects in these patients. 3 key findings →
499 adults 48 to 91 years-old enrolled in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and were administered the MoCA during baseline. 4 key findings →
At the end of 2022, 3.7% (92,293/2,483,798) of people aged ≥62 years in Sweden had a dementia diagnosis from specialist care or drug prescriptions and varied from 0.6% in ages 62-69 to 14.8% in ages ≥90. 5 key findings →
Among 32,430 individuals (mean age at first hospital encounter 76.6±10.9 years; 59.1% female; 4.2% African American; 5.0% Hispanic), only 16.0% received an MCI diagnosis before their dementia diagnosis. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Kidney Medicine·2026-07-20
Older patients with kidney failure residing in high-disadvantage neighborhoods, particularly Black patients and those in suburban, rural, or small-town areas, had a higher risk of ADRD compared with those in low-disadvantage neighborhoods. 5 key findings →
The rising prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, combined with persistent underdiagnosis, is driving an increased need for scalable cognitive assessment tools. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-08-03
Eighty patients were included (mean age: 81 years, interquartile range 74-86 years; 36.2% female, ∼80% with dementia and Alzheimer disease). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·BMC Geriatrics·2025-07-02
/df = 2.81, P < 0.001). There were strong correlations between the C-QDRS and standardized neuropsychological tests, indicating that the C-QDRS exhibited concurrent validity (all P < 0.001). 4 key findings →
The NIA hopes to see continued collection and harmonization of the International HRS and HCAP data, as well as continued use of the data to advance our knowledge of how behavioral and social factors influence aging and life course outcomes, including those related to AD/ADRD. 5 key findings →
The ViT approach predicted dementia with 76.5% balanced accuracy, outperforming human-scored features (74.3%) and existing deep learning models (MiniVGG = 73.3%, MobileNetV2 = 72.3%, relevance factor variational autoencoder = 69.1%) on the TDRA dataset. 3 key findings →
Participants were distributed across various regions of Australia: seven interviews from inner regional Australia, five interviews from outer regional Australia, and twenty-one interviews from metropolitan areas. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Bioengineering·2025-06-21
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the field of medical imaging, offering unprecedented capabilities in data analysis, image interpretation, and decision support. 2 key findings →
In patients with cognitive impairment due to diverse causes, the HTS might occur regardless of MCI versus dementia status and across different etiologies. 4 key findings →
Data collection began in March 2024. So far 562 people completed a pre-screening online questionnaire, with 190 passing pre-screening of whom 54% met eligibility criteria. 5 key findings →
The 4R-like pattern was more prevalent and more strongly expressed (84.3%, mean score, 2.0 ± 1.1) in patients with a consensus diagnosis of PSP/CBD (joint diagnostic group of clinically likely 4R tauopathies) than in all other groups (11.6%, 0.26 ± 0.75, P < 0.0001). 5 key findings →
Using the RGC marker ribonucleic acid binding protein with multiple splicing (RBPMS) and Nissl staining, we found a 46–56% reduction in RBPMS + RGCs and Nissl + neurons in the ganglion cell layer (GCL) of MCI and AD retinas ( P < 0.05–0.001). 5 key findings →
10 of the 1,775 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%),
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.