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 4,201–4,225 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 169 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 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-08-04
Late-onset unexplained epilepsy (LOUE) represents a substantial proportion of epilepsies with onset after 50 years and often manifests as temporal lobe epilepsy (LO-TLE). 4 key findings →
The Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery (SNSB) is one of the standardized neuropsychological test batteries widely used in Korea. 4 key findings →
Data were used from the first wave of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA), a prospective cohort study that includes a comprehensive health assessment. 4 key findings →
Low levels of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) beta-amyloid 1-42 (Abeta42) and high total tau (T-tau) are diagnostic for manifest Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
The independent and combined effects of physical and cognitive domains of frailty in predicting the development of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia are not firmly established. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Physical therapy·2012-09-13
Physical performance tests are important for assessing the effect of physical activity interventions in older people with dementia, but their psychometric properties have not been systematically established within this specific population. 4 key findings →
Early identification of dementia at the stage of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is crucial for timely diagnosis and intervention of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2018-08-14
Observational studies have shown consistently increased likelihood of dementia or mild cognitive impairment diagnoses in people with higher air pollution exposure history, but evidence has been less consistent for associations with cognitive test performance. 4 key findings →
Adherence to the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet has been linked to a decreased risk of dementia, but reverse causality and residual confounding by lifestyle may partly account for this link. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Nature communications·2020-01-23
Population health research is increasingly focused on the genetic determinants of healthy ageing, but there is no public resource of whole genome sequences and phenotype data from healthy elderly individuals. 4 key findings →
Between 1997 and 2016, we repeatedly assessed cognitive function with 5 tests in 9514 participants aged 45-90 years from the population-based Rotterdam Study. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2012-11-07
Hippocampal volumetry derived from structural MRI is increasingly used to delineate regions of interest for functional measurements, assess efficacy in therapeutic trials of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and has been endorsed by the new AD diagnostic guidelines as a radiological marker of disease progression. 4 key findings →
We investigated whether cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) benefit cognitive outcomes in mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease (MCI-AD) and in mild AD dementia (ADdem). 4 key findings →
The 21-point Brain Care Score (BCS) was developed through a modified Delphi process in partnership with practitioners and patients to promote behavior changes and lifestyle choices in order to sustainably reduce the risk of dementia and stroke. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2019-03-04
Current models of progression in neurodegenerative diseases use neuroimaging measures that are averaged across pre-defined regions of interest (ROIs). 4 key findings →
Predicting the progression of cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is important for treatment selection and patient counseling. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·PloS one·2019-03-04
Fibroblast growth factor 23 is an emerging vascular biomarker, recently associated with cerebral small vessel disease and poor cognition in patients on dialysis. 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.