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 3,351–3,375 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 135 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.
This enlarged study confirms earlier findings that statin therapy in early old age, but not in late age, may be associated with a lower risk of AD. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology·2016-04-15
Amyloid-positive cognitively healthy participants showed a significant increase in mI/creatine and mI/NAA levels compared to amyloid-negative healthy elderly (p Conclusions mI levels are elevated already at asymptomatic stages of AD. 2 key findings →
MCI diagnosis frequencies are substantively affected by the stringency of the criteria, but the relative rankings of MCI subtype diagnoses are fairly consistent regardless of the stringency of the criteria. 5 key findings →
Additional study of mechanisms of action and methods for titrating stimulation parameters will be needed to determine if DBS has potential as an AD treatment. 2 key findings →
Practitioners are keen to use snoezelen in dementia care, and some encouraging results have been documented in the area of promoting adaptive behaviours (e.g. The list of trials was compared with those identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group. 5 key findings →
The NutriAlz program had no effect on functional decline in Alzheimer disease patients living at home over one year, but reduced the risk for malnutrition, as recommendations concerning diet and exercise were provided. 2 key findings →
Setup and daily use of mHealth technology appears to be feasible for a person with cognitive impairment with the help of a partner, but increasing daily step counts over 8 weeks was not achieved. 1 key finding →
The purpose of this study was to examine the beneficial effects of a new cognitive intervention program designed for the care and prevention of dementia, namely Learning Therapy. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Trials·2015-05-27
The study will provide evidence for evaluating and understanding the role of electroacupuncture in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
This study examined the effectiveness of three different learning methods: trial and error learning (TE), errorless learning (EL) and learning by modeling with spaced retrieval (MR) on the relearning process of IADL in mild-to-moderately severe Alzheimer's Dementia (AD) patients (n=52), using a 6-weeks randomized controlled trial design. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·BMC neuroscience·2021-08-06
An eight-week course of IVIG totaling 2 g/kg in MCI is safe but is not sufficient to sustain an initial reduction in brain atrophy or a temporary delay in conversion to dementia at five years. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Trials·2018-10-17
SYGRAVA is the first randomized trial to determine whether programmable ASDs reduce complications of drainage compared to fixed ASDs in patients with iNPH. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2025-08-01
A substantial difference in the type of therapeutics researched was observed, with anti-amyloid and anti-tau RCTs being more likely to be funded by the pharmaceutical industry compared with neurotransmitter or other RCTs (anti-amyloid or anti-tau, 68 of 71 [95.8%]; neurotransmitter, 52 of 69 [77.6%]; other, 33 of 52 [63.5%]). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Endocrine reviews·2020-08-01
Physical activity decreases the risk of a network of diseases, and exercise may be prescribed as medicine for lifestyle-related disorders such as type 2 diabetes, dementia, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Stroke·2016-12-15
Two decades of epidemiological research shows that silent cerebrovascular disease is common and is associated with future risk for stroke and dementia. 3 key findings →
Sex or gender differences in the risk of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) differ by world region, suggesting that there are potentially modifiable risk factors for intervention. 1 key finding →
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.