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 5,076–5,100 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 204 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.
The combinations that were both highly prevalent and had the most detrimental effect on global cognition were: hearing loss and physical inactivity for the dyad (mean difference in change score = -0.07 SD; 95 % CI: -0.09 to -0.06; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.28), hearing loss, physical inactivity, and hypertension for the triad (mean difference in change score = -0.07; 95 % CI: -0.09 to -0.06; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.28), and hearing loss, physical inactivity, hypertension, and sleep disturbance for the tetrad (mean difference in change score = -0.05; 95 % CI: -0.07 to -0.03; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.20). 5 key findings →
Cognitive training produced a significant, moderate improvement in cognitive task performance (Hedges’ g = 0.451, 95% CI 0.207–0.696; p < .001). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-01-01
The VSOP/A group had significantly improved processing speed and attention performance compared to the VE group, and these differences persisted through 6 months postintervention. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Cureus·2025-06-29
Our findings suggest that possible sarcopenia is a significant and independent predictor of delirium in older patients with acute stroke. 5 key findings →
This cohort study examines the use of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine among older adults with dementia after admission into hospice care despite the medications’ limited clinical benefit following enrollment into hospice. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Value in Health·2026-03-10
VLAHE residents had fewer hospitalizations and shorter stays (10.5 vs 15.2 days, P = .0004) than comparable NH residents, particularly for acute care. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-11-25
White matter hyperintensity (WMH), indicative of cerebral small vessel disease, has emerged as a potential biomarker for cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Analyses demonstrated that criteria regarding cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, hearing impairment, and sedentary lifestyle were associated with relatively high participant diversity, while gastro-intestinal/liver disease, motivation to participate, and language proficiency criteria were associated with relatively little diversity. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·JAMA Health Forum·2023-09-15
In this cross-sectional study of the Medicare population with acute and postacute care use, beneficiaries with ADRD had increasing enrollment in the Medicare Advantage program, proportional to the growth in overall enrollment, but their disenrollment from Medicare Advantage in the following year remained higher compared with beneficiaries without ADRD. 4 key findings →
Dominance of 4R over three-repeat (exon 10-) tau isoforms contrasts with earlier reports of R406W patients and was not sufficiently explained by the presence of H1/H2 haplotypes in two of the autopsied patients. 3 key findings →
Across studies, MBI appears to be linked to specific neurobiological markers of AD, including Aβ and tau brain deposition, as well as alterations in the mesolimbic pathway and neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory fluid biomarker levels. 3 key findings →
Early and accurate detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is essential for timely intervention and development of disease-modifying treatments. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-08-02
We investigated whether β-amyloid, cortical thickness in medial temporal lobe structures, neuroinflammation, and sociodemographic factors were associated with greater anxious-depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 confinement. 5 key findings →
Lecanemab (Leqembi®) is approved in the United States for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) to be initiated in early AD (mild cognitive impairment [MCI] due to AD or mild AD dementia) with confirmed brain amyloid pathology.
Global staging measures for dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) assess the influence of cognitive loss on the ability to conduct everyday activities and represent the "ultimate test" of efficacy for antidementia drug trials.
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.