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 2,926–2,950 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 118 of 440)· 27,380 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; 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.
During an average follow-up period of 14.5 years, a total of 9520 (81.1%) participants had used NSAIDs at any given time, and 2091 participants developed dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Nature Aging·2025-03-17
Assistance with daily activities is crucial for persons living with dementia and functional limitations, yet many face substantial challenges in accessing adequate care and support. 2 key findings →
The sample consisted predominantly of women (79% in the intervention group, 69% in the control group), with daughters forming the largest caregiver subgroup (66.6% and 52.4%, respectively). 5 key findings →
The SHS global burden increased by 74% between 1990 and 2021 to almost 73·5 million individuals, with population growth accounting for only half of that increase. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-02-20
Among 143 331 older adults with dementia (83 536 [58.3%] female; mean [SD] age, 83.8 [7.5] years), 1312 (0.9%) received a feeding tube in hospital and 142 019 (99.1%) did not. 5 key findings →
Dementia poses a significant global health challenge for both clinicians and patients, impacting millions of individuals worldwide, yet its early diagnosis remains underexplored. 2 key findings →
The weighted prevalence of dementia based on the 10/66 Diagnostic Research Group (DRG) criteria was 8.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3-10.7) in the WiSE 2023 study compared to 10% in the WiSE 2013 study (95% CI: 8.7-11.5). 5 key findings →
Bariatric surgery was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of ADRD, evidenced by a subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) of 0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15–0.89; P = 0.03). 4 key findings →
Meta-analysis identified 44 CpGs and 44 differentially methylated regions consistently associated with time to dementia in both cohorts. 5 key findings →
Data from 1,272,495 individuals, with the mean age at diagnosis ranging from 76.8 years (South Korea) to 82.9 years (Germany), show that the overall median length of survival following recorded diagnosis ranges from 2.4 years (New Zealand) to 7.9 years (South Korea). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·General Psychiatry·2025-03-07
Among our participants, aMCI and VCIND demonstrated prevalence of 14.83% and 2.71%, respectively, and annual incidence (per 1000 person-years) of 69.6 and 10.6, respectively. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·EClinicalMedicine·2025-01-20
Light Gradient-boosting Machine (LightGBM) achieved the highest performance in identifying agitation over an 8-day period with a sensitivity of 71.32% ± 7.38 and specificity of 75.28% ± 7.38. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-11-12
There were 13,145 individuals with risk factor data between 2015 and 2018 (51.1% aged 18-44, 31.0% aged 45-64, and 17.9% aged ≥65 years; 51.5% female after survey-weighting). 5 key findings →
In a meta-analysis of 2 one-sample MR studies, the odds ratio (OR) for 1-SD higher BMI in predicting vascular-related dementia was 1.63 (95% CI, 1.13-2.35). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-01-10
A total of 110 participants (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [4.6] years; 68 female [61.8%]) were randomized to the experimental group (n = 55) and the sham group (n = 55) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 5 key findings →
DTI-ALPS values were significantly lower compared to HC in both DLB (Estimate = -0.084 [-0.14 to -0.03], p = 0.004) and MCI-LB (Estimate = -0.058 [-0.11 to -0.002], p = 0.047) DTI-ALPS was also significantly associated with both baseline (t[147] = 2.22, p = 0.028) and longitudinal decline (t[127] = 2.41,p = 0.017) in cognitive score. 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 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.