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 3,851–3,875 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 155 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2019-07-22
Individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia exhibit significant heterogeneity across clinical symptoms, atrophy patterns, and spatial distribution of Tau deposition. 4 key findings →
Prospective studies reporting associations between cognitive performance and subsequent incident dementia have been subject to attrition bias. 3 key findings →
The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), launched in 2004, has worked to accelerate drug development by validating imaging and blood/cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease clinical treatment trials. 4 key findings →
Identifying clinical measures that track disease in the earliest stages of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is important for clinical trials. 4 key findings →
We examined the association of social activity with cognitive decline in 1138 persons without dementia at baseline with a mean age of 79.6 (SD = 7.5) who were followed for up to 12 years (mean = 5.2; SD = 2.8). 4 key findings →
We assessed the impact of amyloid precursor protein (APP) gene locus duplications in early onset Alzheimer's disease in a Dutch population-based sample. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2011-09-12
A liability threshold model of disease was used to estimate heritability of EOAD and late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD) using concordance for AD among parent-offspring pairs. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Radiology·2018-04-01
Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs), also referred to as microhemorrhages, appear on magnetic resonance (MR) images as hypointense foci notably at T2*-weighted or susceptibility-weighted (SW) imaging. 4 key findings →
Tauopathies are a broad set of neurodegenerative dementias characterized by aggregation of the tau protein into filamentous inclusions that can be found in neurons and glial cells. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·The EMBO journal·2019-07-30
Alzheimer's disease is the most prevalent type of dementia and is caused by the deposition of extracellular amyloid-beta and abnormal tau phosphorylation. 4 key findings →
Soluble oligomers of amyloid β-protein (oAβ) isolated from the brains of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients have been shown experimentally (in the absence of amyloid plaques) to impair hippocampal synaptic plasticity, decrease synapses, induce tau hyperphosphorylation and neuritic dystrophy, activate microglial inflammation, and impair memory in normal adult rodents. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Science advances·2021-01-06
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, is recognized as a heterogeneous disease with diverse pathophysiologic mechanisms. 4 key findings →
Since increased BBB permeability is found in tauopathies without Aß pathology, like PSP, we suspected that tau accumulation alone could not only be sufficient, but even more important than Aß for BBB damage. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Nature neuroscience·2021-10-21
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis overlapping with frontotemporal dementia (ALS/FTD) is a fatal and currently untreatable disease characterized by rapid cognitive decline and paralysis. 4 key findings →
ReDeSign provides dementia training to convenience store workers and contributes to developing an inclusive community for people with dementia. 1 key finding →
The HCRU and costs were greater for AD members during the year prior to diagnosis and during postdiagnosis years 1 and 2 compared to controls. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·BMC Geriatrics·2022-08-03
In comparison with participants living with others and with normal cognition, those adults living alone with cognitive impairment reported a higher percentage of catastrophic health expenditure (19.5% vs. 11.8%, respectively, P < 0.001). 5 key findings →
TM was associated with higher odds of 30-day readmission (OR = 1.07 [CI: 1.02 to 1.12]) and frequent hospitalizations (OR = 1.10 [CI: 1.06 to 1.14]) compared to MA. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2024-04-25
Four states have clinician reporting mandates, 14 have mandates requiring drivers to self-report dementia diagnoses, and 32 states and the District of Columbia do not have explicit requirements. 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.