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 1,176–1,200 of 1,649 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study · free to read(page 48 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2016-06-02
To determine if proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((1)H-MRS) detect differences in dementia status in adults with Down syndrome (DS), we used (1)H-MRS to measure neuronal and glial metabolites in the posterior cingulate cortex in 22 adults with DS and in 15 age- and gender-matched healthy controls. 5 key findings →
Lesions in the hippocampus (HC), the entorhinal cortex (EC), and the prefrontal cortex (PFC) are associated with impairment of episodic memory; reduced HC volume is linked to memory declines in dementia; and decline in EC volume predicts progression from mild cognitive impairment to dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2006-07-24
Magnetic resonance (MR)-based volume measurements of atrophy are potential markers of disease progression in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Cognitive impairment is an increasingly recognized comorbidity of diabetes, yet the mechanisms underlying this association remain poorly understood. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Resuscitation·2024-12-03
We studied the promising Alzheimer biomarker plasma tau phosphorylated at threonine 231 (p-tau231) in a cohort of cardiac arrest patients who survived to intensive care to predict long-term neurological outcomes. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2026-08-03
Moreover, there is limited knowledge regarding associations with domain-specific cognitive decline and modifying effects of key individual characteristics. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-08-04
Late-onset unexplained epilepsy (LOUE) represents a substantial proportion of epilepsies with onset after 50 years and often manifests as temporal lobe epilepsy (LO-TLE). 4 key findings →
Data were used from the first wave of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA), a prospective cohort study that includes a comprehensive health assessment. 4 key findings →
Low levels of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) beta-amyloid 1-42 (Abeta42) and high total tau (T-tau) are diagnostic for manifest Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2012-11-07
Hippocampal volumetry derived from structural MRI is increasingly used to delineate regions of interest for functional measurements, assess efficacy in therapeutic trials of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and has been endorsed by the new AD diagnostic guidelines as a radiological marker of disease progression. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2019-03-04
Current models of progression in neurodegenerative diseases use neuroimaging measures that are averaged across pre-defined regions of interest (ROIs). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Brain research·2010-10-18
The neuroprotective effects of estrogen have been demonstrated consistently in cellular and animal studies but the evidence in women remains conflicted. 4 key findings →
Age and the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele are well-known risk factors for Alzheimer disease, but whether female sex is also a risk factor remains controversial. 4 key findings →
We examined factors associated with self-reported medication nonadherence in well-characterized community-based cohort of older adults. 5 key findings →
Significant interactions between amyloid status and modifiable risk factors were observed for diabetes (adjusted β = -0.206, p = 0.032), high cholesterol (adjusted β = -0.155, p < 0.001), and physical inactivity (adjusted β = -0.161, p = 0.046), indicating combined effects rather than additive effects on cognitive decline among Aβ+ individuals. 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.