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 676–700 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 28 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.
We identified a new genetic risk association of AD with rare coding CLU variations that is independent of the 5' common association signal identified in the GWA studies. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2011-06-01
Our results suggest that diet may be a powerful environmental factor that modulates Alzheimer disease risk through its effects on central nervous system concentrations of Aβ42, lipoproteins, oxidative stress, and insulin. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2023-12-01
In this randomized clinical trial, BIIB080 reduced tau biomarkers, including CSF t-tau, CSF p-tau181, and tau PET, which is associated with cognitive decline, in participants with mild AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Neurology·2019-12-02
Assignment to active treatment was not beneficial for any of the indications examined and may have been slightly disadvantageous for patients with Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-12-13
Of 47 participants enrolled (mean age = 73.8 years; 43% female), 1 dropped out before treatment initiation and 6 before completion, including 2 in the nicotinamide and 4 in the placebo arm. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-05-29
Higher tau levels are associated with the fastest decline in everyday functioning in the presence of elevated amyloid, and those accumulating more tau show a faster decline in everyday functioning. 3 key findings →
This retrospective cohort study is to investigate the association between herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections and dementia, and the effects of anti-herpetic medications on the risk involved, using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). 4 key findings →
The overall unadjusted pooled odds ratio for the progression of MCI to dementia in people with diabetes/MetS was 1.67 (95% CI 1.27-2.19); the pooled odds ratio for progression in diabetes + MCI was 1.53 (95% CI 1.20-1.97) and in people with MetS + MCI was 2.95 (95% CI 1.23-7.05). 4 key findings →
In older women, habitual sleep duration predicts the future risk for cognitive impairments including dementia, independent of vascular risk factors. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2020-04-01
For cognitively unimpaired individuals, living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods was associated with significantly lower cerebral volumes, after controlling for maximal premorbid (total intracranial) volume. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·BMC medicine·2014-04-15
Pre- and postoperative orthogeriatric care given in an acute geriatric ward was not effective in reducing delirium or long-term cognitive impairment in patients with hip fracture. 5 key findings →
We have previously performed detailed clinical and neuropsychological assessments in a community-based cohort of patients with newly diagnosed parkinsonism, and through analysis of a subcohort with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD), we have demonstrated that cognitive dysfunction occurs even at the time of PD diagnosis and is heterogeneous. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Nature aging·2023-05-18
Blood-based biomarkers hold great promise to revolutionize the diagnostic and prognostic work-up of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in clinical practice. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2020-04-27
The clinical diagnosis of synucleinopathies, including Parkinson's disease (PD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and multiple system atrophy (MSA), is challenging, especially at an early disease stage, due to the heterogeneous and often non-specific clinical manifestations. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2016-11-18
In multivariate analyses, baseline age, University of Pennsylvania Smell Inventory Test (UPSIT) scores, CSF amyloid - (Aβ 42 ) to t-tau ratio, and APOE status were associated with change in MoCA scores over time. 5 key findings →
Pulse pressure and pulse wave velocity, markers of arterial stiffness, have been associated with stroke, dementia, and lowered levels of cognitive function. 3 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.