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 7,326–7,350 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 294 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.
Recent findings suggest that hypercholesterolemia may contribute to the onset of Alzheimer's disease-like dementia but the underlying mechanisms remain unknown. 4 key findings →
Microglia constitute the primary resident immune surveillance cell in the brain and are thought to play a significant role in the pathogenesis of several neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and HIV-associated dementia. 4 key findings →
The decline in mental fitness associated with Alzheimer disease is accompanied by physical changes in the brain, including the development of characteristic plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, but the pathogenesis of those changes is not clear. 4 key findings →
Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common disorder following surgery, which seriously threatens the quality of patients' life, especially the older people. 4 key findings →
Amyloid-β plaques and neurofibrillary tangles are the main neuropathological hallmarks in Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common cause of dementia in the elderly. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Journal of virology·2001-11-01
The viral determinants that underlie human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) neurotropism are unknown, due in part to limited studies on viruses isolated from brain. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in the elderly, and manifests as progressive cognitive decline and profound neuronal loss. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2003-03-01
We examined the associations of postmortem neocortical immunoreactivities for microglia, astrocytes, Abeta and Tau with cognitive changes in clinically characterized subjects with pathological diagnoses (CERAD classification) of definite AD (9), possible AD (15) and age-matched controls (11). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Stroke·2001-05-01
Vascular disease causes multi-infarct dementia (MID) or Binswanger's disease (BD), the latter of which is a progressive form of vascular dementia (VaD) associated pathologically with fibrinoid and hyaline changes in brain arterioles with injury to the white matter. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common neurodegenerative disorder associated with dementia, is typified by the pathological accumulation of amyloid Aβ peptides and neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) within the brain. 4 key findings →
The cross-disciplinary expertise, required for GA, common in the days before medical specialization and enabled by the relative paucity of development in various fields compared with today, can be reborn with the advent of Electronic Health Records (EHR) systems that make the tools of medical geography accessible to a wide variety of health care researchers and clinical subspecialties. 4 key findings →
Approximately half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA), a private plan alternative to traditional Medicare (TM). 3 key findings →
Discussions revealed that people were generally supportive of this type of research, provided they gave informed consent and that devices were discreet, comfortable and easy to use. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Health Affairs·2022-09-01
In 2020 Medicare reintroduced Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCCs) to risk-adjust Medicare Advantage and accountable care organization (ACO) payments. 5 key findings →
Of 15,390 narratives collected from 3139 patients with PsA for exploratory analysis, physical concepts were the most common (81.5%), followed by emotional (50.7%), cognitive (20.0%), role activity (8.1%), and social (5.6%) concepts. 5 key findings →
As they mix together, they become purple.2 According to a few previous reports, PUBS often occurred in elderly women who are bedridden, chronically catheterized, and constipated.3 In addition, PUBS was found in alkaline urine and with higher bacterial counts.3,4 Because of lack of significant patient numbers, the clinical background, underlining diseases, urinanalysis, and incidence of PUBS have not been well documented. 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.