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 6,601–6,625 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 265 of 440)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
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.
Plasma phosphorylated Tau217 (pTau217) demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy for AD, DLB, and FTD (area under the curve [AUCs]: 0.9, 0.84, and 0.79, respectively). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-08-19
Growing dementia prevalence underscores the need for efficient screening methods, but lengthy digital assessments often cause fatigue among older adults. 1 key finding →
China accounts for 1/5 of the global population and China faces a particularly heavy dementia burden due to its rapidly ageing population. 4 key findings →
The rising incidence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) poses significant challenges to traditional diagnostic methods, which primarily rely on neuropsychological assessments and brain MRIs. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-07-02
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that significantly impacts cognitive function, posing a major global health challenge. 1 key finding →
Thirty-two patients met the inclusion criteria (n=11 moderate-to-severe SVD, mean age 72 ± 10 years, 6 women; n = 21 none-to-minimal SVD, mean age 70 ± 10 years, 12 women). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·BMC Psychology·2025-04-11
In this study, the total scores of caregiver burden, family resilience, and SOC were 45.64 ± 17.04, 175.30 ± 34.38, and 52.29 ± 15.91 among family caregivers of people with dementia. 5 key findings →
People living with dementia and their care partners benefit from services and supports from a wide variety of healthcare and social service professionals. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Aging & Mental Health·2025-03-25
= 0.01). We also found that greater use of emotion-focused coping and deriving greater gains in caregiving mitigated the negative association between caregiver financial difficulty and their distress and perception of PwSDs' well-being. 2 key findings →
Caregivers whose care recipients were female ( B = −0.29, p = 0.006), had more chronic conditions ( B = 0.31, p = 0.011), and had lower Mini-Mental State Exam scores ( B = −0.20, p = 0.015) reported higher task time burdens. 5 key findings →
All concurrent validity correlations followed the expected directionality, with 19/21 inter-scale correlations in the total sample reaching statistical significance (p<0.05), and 17/21 reaching at least a low correlation (0.3). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·BMC Psychiatry·2025-05-19
In 2021, global mortality from AD and other dementias among individuals aged 60 and older reached approximately 1,922,970.75 cases (95% CI: 480,348.08 to 5,104,315.95), and the prevalence was 52,560,253.51 cases (95% CI: 41,399,948.84 to 65,633,448.71). 5 key findings →
Despite comprising the largest segment of the sexual minority population and experiencing unique stressors and health disparities, bi+ dementia caregivers remain underrepresented in health and caregiving research. 3 key findings →
Among a cohort comprising 109,778 individuals, the use of GLP-1RA demonstrated a reduced risk of dementia compared with its non-use (aHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neuroepidemiology·2025-01-21
The global age-standardized prevalence of AD and other dementias increased from 672 (95% uncertainty interval: 589 to 764) per 100,000 population in 1990 to 694 (603 to 794) per 100,000 population in 2021, with AAPCs of 0.09% (95% confidence interval: 0.06% to 0.11%). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Frontiers in Medicine·2025-07-15
The early and accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia remains a critical challenge, particularly with traditional machine learning models which often fail to provide transparency in their predictions, reducing user confidence and treatment effectiveness. 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.