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 2,501–2,525 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 101 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.
The review demonstrates accumulating evidence supporting health behavioral effects in reducing the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. 4 key findings →
Of 502 535 participants in UK Biobank, 143 215 met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analyses. 68 500 (47·8%) of the participants were pre-frail and 5565 (3·9%) were frail. 4 key findings →
Protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) is common in connection with chronic disease and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. 3 key findings →
A prolonged preclinical phase of more than two decades before the onset of dementia suggested that initial brain changes of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the symptoms of advanced AD may represent a unique continuum. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2010-04-12
Simultaneous consideration of previous knowledge regarding potentially AD-related nutrients and multiple food groups can aid in identifying food combinations that are associated with AD risk. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurology·1984-07-01
Clinical criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease include insidious onset and progressive impairment of memory and other cognitive functions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Nature medicine·2014-03-09
Alzheimer's disease causes a progressive dementia that currently affects over 35 million individuals worldwide and is expected to affect 115 million by 2050 (ref. 1). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neuroepidemiology·2008-02-07
Strengths of the study are that the subjects were randomly selected from a defined population, the majority of the subjects were examined in person, and MCI was defined using published criteria. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2008-07-01
Older patients with a college education who present with complaints of cognitive decline (reported by themselves or others) and score less than 27 on the MMSE are at a greater risk of being diagnosed with dementia and should be referred for a comprehensive dementia evaluation, including formal neuropsychological testing. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurology·2002-03-01
Individuals with an isolated pathologic diagnosis of AD, hippocampal sclerosis, frontotemporal degeneration, and neurofibrillary tangle--only degeneration usually had substantial hippocampal atrophy, while those with changes of typical aging did not. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurology·2016-04-01
Key features of this study include the revised diagnostic criteria with improved specificity and sensitivity, an unrestricted age range, and simultaneous assessment of multiple FTLD syndromes. 3 key findings →
This relationship was evident even after accounting for degree of memory deficit across the continuum of cognitive impairment and dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2014-02-20
Olfactory dysfunction is a common and early symptom of many neurodegenerative diseases, particularly of Parkinson's disease and other synucleinopathies, Alzheimer's disease (AD), and mild cognitive impairment heralding its progression to dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·JAMA·2009-12-01
Circulating leptin was associated with a reduced incidence of dementia and AD and with cerebral brain volume in asymptomatic older adults. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2022-10-26
ALPS-index may provide useful disease progression or treatment biomarkers for patients with AD as an indicator of modulation of glymphatic activity. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurology·2013-07-24
These findings suggest that DMN fcMRI may prove useful as a biomarker across a wide spectrum of disease, and support the feasibility of DMN fcMRI as a secondary endpoint in upcoming multicenter clinical trials in Alzheimer disease. 2 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.