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 3,876–3,900 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 156 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.·Medical Care·2020-07-23
Total monthly health care costs for individuals with ADRD are statistically greater (P<0.05) than controls beginning in the third month before diagnosis and remain significantly greater through the eighth month following diagnosis. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Medical Care·2026-06-04
For VA and Medicare cohorts, dementia diagnosis was absent in 88.7% and 80.5%, respectively, of follow-up encounters in the other system. 5 key findings →
Medicare beneficiaries with a little or a lot of trouble hearing had 18% (95% confidence interval [CI] odds ratio [OR] = 1.10-1.27) and 25% (95% CI OR = 1.07-1.47) increased odds of reporting greater difficulty with understanding Medicare, respectively, compared with those with no hearing trouble. 3 key findings →
Overall, 92.7% of the original cohort members participated in at least one follow-up round and 87.2% participated in at least two (balanced by deworming treatment status). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Epidemiology·2015-01-12
We found a 2- to 3-fold geographical variation in dementia odds in Sweden, after twin random effects-likely to capture genetic and shared environmental variance-were removed. 5 key findings →
The average PM2.5 levels in the IHS counties were lower than those in all US counties, while the mean O3 levels in the IHS counties were higher than the US counties. 4 key findings →
Incentives are a cornerstone of attracting and retaining participants in clinical research studies.1 They serve as compensation for the time and effort individuals dedicate to the research process.1 However, previous randomized clinical trials found incentivizing was not associated with increased rates of clinical trial recruitment.2, 3 Furthermore, the rate participants redeem these incentives can vary considerably.1, 4 Although numerous methods have been used to increase trial recruitment, no studies have been conducted to explore factors associated with incentive redemption, regardless of clinical area. 5 key findings →
In the whole cohort, p ‐tau217, NfL, GFAP and p ‐tau181 were significantly increased over time showing more accelerated increase in Aβ+ than Aβ‐ participants. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2026-06-01
This cross-sectional study evaluates the performance of the US Food and Drug Administration–cleared phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217) to β-amyloid 42 ratio cut points used to detect amyloid pathology associated with Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →
Plasma p‐tau 217 offers a cost‐effective AD‐specific alternative to tau‐PET and could potentially be implemented for monitoring cognitive changes in AD trials, while amyloid‐PET lacks utility. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-04-29
A total of 322 participants with p-tau217, GFAP, and NfL analyses were stratified into the EOAD or FTD group based on their diagnosis. 5 key findings →
) within the first intron of SCN8A on chromosome 12 (Figure 1), overlapping a significant region in the previous admixture mapping analysis. eHiCA revealed more and stronger interactions between rs4761988 and SLC4A8, SCN8A and FIGNL2 in EU compared to AF genome (Figure 2), consistent with the admixture mapping result. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Nature Communications·2025-04-15
Public health guidelines recommend exercise as a key lifestyle intervention for promoting and maintaining healthy sleep function and reducing disease risk. 5 key findings →
The relationship between sleep quality, neurofilament light chain (NFL), and cognitive impairment, including the potential effect of plasma NFL in this association, remains unclear. 3 key findings →
Baseline 18F-MK-6240 PET showed a minimal signal in CU participants, localized signal to the medial temporal lobe in participants with MCI, and a signal spanning the inferolateral temporal lobe and extending posteriorly along the ventral cortex in participants with AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-06-05
Of 31 028 older adults in MEPS, 5184 (10%) were African American; 146 (<1%) American Indian or Alaska Native; 1043 (3%) Asian (Indian, Chinese, or Filipino); 5346 (10%) Latino; 690 (2%) Other Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander; and 18 617 (75%) were White. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-03-06
Of 8976 decedents (mean [SD] age, 81.3 [8.6] years; 4927 women [55.1%] women) in the cohort, 2197 (22.5%) were included in the low wealth category, 4534 (50.5%) in the medium wealth category, and 2245 (27.1%) in the high wealth category. 5 key findings →
This diverse sample of Indigenous (1.65%), Black (11.43%), Hispanic (9.85%), and White (77.07%) older adults had a mean age of 61 (SD = 9.66) and was 52% female. 4 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.