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
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 651–675 of 1,649 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study · free to read(page 27 of 66)· 30,980 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; 16,452 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.
We used Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regressions to assess whether circadian disturbances predict an increased risk of incident Alzheimer's dementia and conversion of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-03-18
We have developed MCI risk scores using variables easily assessable in the clinical setting and that may be useful in routine patient care. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-04-15
With the aging US population and increasing incidence of Alzheimer disease (AD), understanding factors contributing to driving cessation among older adults is crucial for clinicians. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-04-16
Dementia-related blood biomarkers are the future of large-scale dementia risk stratification; however, the extent to which phosphorylated tau (P-tau181), neurofilament light (NfL), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) are associated with nonmodifiable risk factors has yet to be confirmed in the community, and the role of menopause has yet to be investigated. 4 key findings →
This study examined rates of dementia progression as ascertained by the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) for symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (sAD), and assessed participant characteristics as predictors of CDR-SB progression. 3 key findings →
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are the most commonly used scales to test cognitive impairment in Lewy body disease (LBD), but there is no consensus on which is best suited to assess cognition in clinical practice and most sensitive to cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
We thus examined whether higher blood cholesterol concentrations were associated with faster cognitive decline in a community-based longitudinal study of Chinese elderly. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2015-10-26
Structural MRI measures for monitoring Alzheimer's Disease (AD) progression are becoming instrumental in the clinical practice, and more so in the context of longitudinal studies. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-07-27
The association between patterns of physical/mental activity and dementia and how it is affected by disease susceptibility remains unknown. 4 key findings →
Understanding the mental health consequences of child maltreatment at different life stages is important in accurately quantifying the burden of maltreatment. 4 key findings →
The objective of this study was to investigate whether increased NLR in older adults is independently associated with the risk of subsequent dementia. 4 key findings →
The key pathological hallmarks-extracellular plaques and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles (NFT)-described by Alois Alzheimer in his seminal 1907 article are still central to the postmortem diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), but major advances in our understanding of the underlying pathophysiology as well as significant progress in clinical diagnosis and therapy have changed the perspective and importance of neuropathologic evaluation of the brain. 4 key findings →
Sensitive detection of cognitive decline over the course of preclinical Alzheimer's disease is critical as the field moves toward secondary prevention trials. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2024-02-28
A total of 1780 major operations (representing 9 556 171 survey-weighted operations nationally) were identified from 1477 community-living participants; mean (SD) age was 79.5 (7.0) years, with 56% being female. 5 key findings →
From 1996 through 2008, 5.55% of hospitalized patients resided in a nursing home 6 months later compared with 0.54% of nonhospitalized control patients. 5 key findings →
Disturbing dreams were reported by 24.2% overall and all-cause dementia, and AD incidence was 10.8 and 5.3 per 1000 person-years, respectively. 5 key findings →
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.
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%),
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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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.