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 5,001–5,025 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 201 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.
In 2012, the national prevalence of antipsychotic drug use was 20.7% for elderly patients with dementia, with a national incidence of 3.9%. 4 key findings →
The prevalence of cognitive impairment, MCI, and dementia among participants aged 60 years and older were 21.48% (95% CI, 19.90-23.10), 15.70% (95% CI, 14.30-17.10), and 5.77 (95% CI, 4.90-6.70), respectively. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Clinical Chemistry·2025-11-13
High correlations between plasma and serum were observed for most assays (ρ > 0.8), though plasma often yielded higher concentrations. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·The Lancet Neurology·2026-09-01
The study included 197 patients in whom lecanemab infusions had been started (lecanemab group), as well as 173 patients in whom lecanemab had been ordered but not yet started, who were combined with 1139 research participants with cognitive impairment from the Knight ADRC cohort to form the untreated control group with cognitive impairment (n=1312). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Journal of Nutrition·2025-09-27
RBC DHA was associated with a positive (improved) global cognition (PACC) rate of change (estimate: 0.011; 95% CI: 0.001, 0.021; P = 0.024). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-04-03
Among 203 enrolled patients, 186 (mean [SD] age, 68.7 [5.2] years; 119 males [64.0%]) were randomized (137 to the CN-105 group, 49 to the placebo group) and underwent surgery. 5 key findings →
Thirty medical specialists (geriatricians, n = 23; psychiatrists, n = 4; neurologists, n = 3) from 30 different clinics participated (public, 76.7%; private, 23.3%), including from metropolitan (73.3%), regional (20.0%) and rural (6.7%) areas. 5 key findings →
This special issue of Alzheimer's & Dementia celebrates the accomplishments of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) project as it approaches its 20th anniversary in 2024, supported by funding from the National Institute on Aging. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Acta Neuropathologica·2026-05-20
Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is a cerebrovascular disorder characterized by the deposition of amyloid-β (Aβ) in the walls of leptomeningeal and cortical blood vessels that increases risk of intracerebral hemorrhages and progressive cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Nutrients·2025-10-27
Glaucoma is a major ocular neurodegenerative disease and a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide, with prevalence projected to exceed 110 million by 2040. 3 key findings →
Among 5,145 participants included in the analyses, 747 (14.5 %) reported hearing loss, including 207 Black adults and 199 White adults. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Clinical Epigenetics·2025-01-16
Recent studies support the influence of paternal lifestyle and diet before conception on the health of the offspring via epigenetic inheritance through sperm DNA methylation, histone modification, and small non-coding RNA (sncRNA) expression and regulation. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-05-06
In the complex realm of cognitive disorders, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) are the two most prevalent dementia types, presenting entangled symptoms yet requiring distinct treatment approaches. 1 key finding →
These lessons emphasize the importance of ensuring tests are feasible across both high-income countries and LMICs, maintaining consistency within studies and over time, and designing comprehensive cognitive batteries for improved measurement precision of general and domain-specific phenotypes. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Human Brain Mapping·2025-04-15
Cerebellar volumetric changes are intricately linked to aging, with distinct patterns across its transverse zones, the functional subdivisions characterized by unique cytoarchitectural and connectivity profiles. 5 key findings →
Nearly half (48%) of older adults experienced an inpatient admission, and nearly all (92%) experienced a potentially burdensome intervention. 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.