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 3,226–3,250 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 130 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 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2020-07-20
We categorized CVH on the basis of the American Heart Association Ideal CVH Index and genetic risk through a genetic risk score (GRS) of common genetic variants and the APOE ε4 genotype in 1,211 Framingham Heart Study (FHS) offspring cohort participants. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·BMC medicine·2023-05-04
Chronic musculoskeletal pain has been linked to dementia; however, chronic pain typically occurs in multiple sites; therefore, this study was to investigate whether greater number of chronic pain sites is associated with a higher risk of dementia and its subtypes. 4 key findings →
The classic pathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles (AD neuropathologic changes, or ADNC). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-12-05
Perivascular spaces (PVS) visible on MRI scans may represent key aspects in the pathophysiology of stroke and dementia, including cerebral small vessel disease and glymphatic dysfunction. 4 key findings →
A lack of understanding of the causes of attrition in longitudinal studies of older adults may lead to higher attrition rates and bias longitudinal study results. 4 key findings →
Accumulation of toxic protein aggregates-amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau tangles-is the pathological hallmark of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) studies have found that patients with Alzheimer's dementia (AD) have abnormally low rates of cerebral glucose metabolism in posterior cingulate, parietal, temporal, and prefrontal cortex. 4 key findings →
An (18)F-labeled PET amyloid-beta (Abeta) imaging agent could facilitate the clinical evaluation of late-life cognitive impairment by providing an objective measure for Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology. 4 key findings →
Although senile plaques focally disrupt neuronal health, the functional response of astrocytes to Alzheimer's disease pathology is unknown. 4 key findings →
Despite advances in uncovering the mechanisms that underlie neuroinflammation and neurodegenerative disease, therapies that prevent neuronal loss remain elusive. 4 key findings →
Our pilot study results indicate that it is feasible to recruit, retain, and provide follow-up telephone coaching to older adults after hip fracture. 5 key findings →
Among non-Latino Whites, ADI was associated with dementia incidence (most vs. least disadvantaged ADI quintile HR = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.15). 4 key findings →
Individuals with rapid progression were more likely to have at least one APOE ε4 allele (OR: 2.08 [95% CI: 1.16–3.74], p < 0.01), higher Braak stage (2.19 [1.20–3.98], p < 0.01), higher Thal phase (2.45 [1.24–4.83], p < 0.01), more severe white matter rarefaction (1.68 [1.21–2.35], p < 0.01), and in the final 24 months of life, more frequent untreated/undertreated hyperlipidemia (1.74 [1.35–5.56], p < 0.01) and less frequent untreated/undertreated depression (0.40 [0.17–0.91], p < 0.05). 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.