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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 2,476–2,500 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 100 of 440)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 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 58 out of 100.·Neurology·2013-07-26
Smoking and education, which have opposing risk effects on AD and PD, are not risk factors for DLB; however, depression and low caffeine intake, both risk factors for AD and PD, increase risk of DLB more strongly than in either. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2016-06-01
These results suggest that, to optimize observing a treatment effect, clinical trials enrolling cognitively normal individuals should selectively recruit participants with abnormal levels of both amyloid and tau (ie, stage 2) because this group would be expected to show the greatest cognitive decline over time if untreated. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurology·2020-08-11
Within APOE ε4 carriers, sex differences in CSF p-Tau are more evident in early disease stages, whereas for APOE ε4 noncarriers, sex differences are more evident in advanced disease stages. 3 key findings →
The safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of bapineuzumab (AAB-001), a humanized monoclonal antibody to amyloid beta, were evaluated in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease in a phase 1, randomized, third-party unblinded, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose trial. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurology and therapy·2021-08-16
These results indicate that trans-resveratrol has potential neuroprotective roles in the treatment of moderate to mild AD and that its mechanism may involve a reduction in the accumulation and toxicity of Aβ in the brain of patients, thereby reducing neuroinflammation. 4 key findings →
Among caregivers, this small randomized controlled trial found that escitalopram use resulted in improvement in depression, resilience, burden and distress, and quality of life. 4 key findings →
Benefit-finding is an efficacious intervention for depressive symptoms in Alzheimer caregivers, with strong effects in the medium-term post-intervention and possible moderate effects in the longer-term post-intervention. 2 key findings →
Phenotypic personality dimensions, primarily neuroticism and extraversion, moderate the relationship between APOE [Latin Small Letter Open E]-4 genotype and cognitive outcomes among older adults. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurology and therapy·2020-12-26
In mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer disease (AD), also known as prodromal AD, there is evidence for a pathologic shortage of uridine, choline, and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]), which are key nutrients needed by the brain. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Brain sciences·2023-07-22
This randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the effect of 12 weeks of therapeutic exercise on cognitive function and daily activities in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2025-06-30
Mean (SD) β-glucocerebrosidase levels were higher at week 26 (ambroxol, 12.45 [1.97] nmol/h/mg; 91% CI, 11.54-13.36 nmol/h/mg); placebo, 8.50 [1.96] nmol/h/mg; 91% CI, 7.65-9.34 nmol/h/mg; P = .05) in the ambroxol group compared with placebo. 3 key findings →
Once-weekly 5-mg/d donepezil TDS demonstrated minimal skin irritation under conditions of use of 3 consecutive weekly patch applications to the same skin site and minimal sensitization potential. 2 key findings →
Patient treatment with sertraline was not associated with significantly greater reductions in caregiver distress than placebo treatment. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·JAMA·2014-12-01
The prevalence of MCI in adults aged 65 years and older is 10% to 20%; risk increases with age and men appear to be at higher risk than women. 2 key findings →
Recent findings Both of these leisure-time activities were associated with significant reductions in the risk of dementia in longitudinal studies. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·PLoS medicine·2017-03-21
Cross-sectional associations support the view that enhancing cognitive reserve may benefit cognition, and maintenance of cognitive health may be supported by a healthy and active lifestyle, in later life. 3 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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.