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
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 2,876–2,900 of 3,123 studies · tagged Treatments(page 116 of 125)· 28,580 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; 14,058 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 32 out of 100.·Neuroscience letters·2020-02-27
In addition to the full-length beta-amyloid peptides (Aβ 1-40/42), several Aβ variants, truncated at their N- or C-termini and bearing different post-translational modifications, have been detected in the brain of Alzheimer´s disease (AD) patients. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-06-09
To determine the relationship between regional brain edema caused by anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody therapy (ARIA-E) and the degree of regional β-amyloid (Aβ) positron emission tomography (PET) signal reduction. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia and one of the leading causes of death in adults age 65 y or older in the United States. 1 key finding →
To the Editor: We have recently highlighted the potential pitfalls of amyloid-beta (Aβ) PET, suggesting that both Aβ and tau assessments are necessary to relate clinical symptoms to Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology.1 Herein, we would like to present 3 additional cases related to the clinical practice of disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for AD. 4 key findings →
Donanemab increased total healthcare costs ($300,689 vs. $178,121) and societal costs ($389,113 vs. $283,618) compared with standard care per capita, while improving health outcomes (4.38 vs. 4.01 QALYs) per capita. 5 key findings →
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is the in-between stage between healthy cognitive aging and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Letter in response to the article by Wang et al. recently published in Alzheimer's & Dementia (Wang W, Wang Q, Qi X, Gurney M, Perry G, Volkow ND, Davis PB, Kaelber DC, Xu R. Associations of semaglutide with first-time diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: Target trial emulation using nationwide real-world data in the US. 3 key findings →
According to the latest report in 2024 by the World Health Organization, based on global data from 2021, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other forms of dementia rank seventh among the leading causes of death worldwide, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths. 5 key findings →
The recent approval of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for early Alzheimer's disease (AD) marks a major shift in clinical practice. 5 key findings →
The 2022 revision of Japanese healthcare reimbursement removed pharmacists from the mandatory dysphagia team, despite emerging evidence of medication-related swallowing complications. 3 key findings →
We sought to identify patterns in occupational therapy (OT) and physical therapy (PT) home health care visits among people living with dementia (PLWD) by (1) level of function care partner report compared with administrative data, (2) race and ethnicity, and (3) level of socioeconomic resources. 3 key findings →
Theranostics—the use of diagnostic and therapeutic drugs that target the same molecular marker of disease—extends beyond the paradigm of radiopharmaceutical drug pairs used in oncologic settings (e.g., somatostatin receptor subtype 2 and prostate-specific membrane antigen theranostics) to other 1 key finding →
Monoclonal antibodies such as lecanemab and donanemab show reduction in amyloid plaque and slowing of cognitive and functional decline (modest) in early AD (mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia). 5 key findings →
Monoclonal antibodies such as lecanemab and donanemab show reduction in amyloid plaque and slowing of cognitive and functional decline (modest) in early AD (mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100.·Discover Neuroscience·2026-06-30
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by progressive accumulation of amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides, initiating a pathological cascade from soluble monomers to toxic oligomers, protofibrils, fibrils, and ultimately extracellular amyloid plaques that contribute to synaptic dysfunction and neuronal degeneration. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100.·Clinical Chemistry·2025-11-21
Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia and the sixth leading cause of death among adults ≥65 years in the United States (1). 5 key findings →
10 of the 3,106 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%),
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 (3.6% 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.