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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 7,751–7,775 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 311 of 440)· 27,780 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; 13,259 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.
Half of GUIDE-eligible PwD received care from multiple caregivers and high strain was common even among caregivers considered "low-complexity" under GUIDE. 5 key findings →
3 network types were identified: "Siloed"-small networks, limited task sharing (29.8% of networks); "Small but Mighty"-small networks, high task sharing (23.0% of networks); and "Complex"-large networks, diverse membership, members who share and specialize in task assistance (47.2%). 3 key findings →
A significant association between increased caregiver burden and BPSD in patients with AD was demonstrated, which may be associated with decreased caregiver healthcare and social care-related QOL. 2 key findings →
We synthesized caregivers' multiple challenges under five themes - (1) lack of information and awareness limit perceived need for services, (2) cultural norms and values influence decision to seek services, (3) complex processes and long waiting times hinder ability to reach services, (4) financial constraints and high costs force alternate care arrangements, and (5) inability to meet expectations and lack of family support limit engagement with services. 4 key findings →
With the increased use of technological supports in residential care homes, there is growing interest in the use of real-time location systems (RTLS) to enhance safety and streamline care. 1 key finding →
People with dementia have complex medical, functional, and social needs and experience highly variable care quality and outcomes across the U.S. health care system. 5 key findings →
A total of 114 older adults (mean age 73 ± 10 years, 51% female) and their primary caregivers (mean age 49 ± 16 years, 70% female) participated, of whom 73 were recruited from health facilities and 41 from rural communities. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Aging Cell·2025-03-12
We demonstrate that senolytic treatment is an effective therapeutic strategy to mitigate cognitive impairment by reducing neuroinflammation and associated metabolic disturbances. 2 key findings →
Medicare beneficiaries who received an AWV were 13% to 21% more likely than those without an AWV to be diagnosed at MCI stage versus ADRD stage. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·PLoS ONE·2025-08-01
Approximately, 25.7% of rural and 20.8% of urban caregivers reported ≥14 PMHD while 25% of rural and 10% of urban caregivers reported ≥14 PPHD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Genetic Epidemiology·2026-06-23
We found comparable associations between dementia and PRS when comparing a C+T method with only 15 SNPs and PRS derived from Bayesian models that include > 800,000 SNPs (HR 5e‐08 = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.08–1.28; HR CSx = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07−1.27). 3 key findings →
Core cultural values, along with commonly held beliefs about dementia, influence the caregiving roles assumed by Hispanic/Latino caregivers. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neuroepidemiology·2025-03-12
The total number of new diagnoses of dementia with a vascular component or vascular alone was 202, with 20 cases attributable to pure VD. 5 key findings →
• CircS was associated with a 40.1 % increased risk of incident all-cause dementia. • A graded increase in dementia risk with escalating severity of CircS. • The presence of ≥ 3 CircS components was significantly associated with dementia. • There was a synergistic effect of CircS and high genetic risk on dementia. 5 key findings →
The functions of the heart and brain are closely linked and essential to support human life by the heart-brain axis, which is a complex interconnection between the heart and brain. 2 key findings →
Delirium is a common cause and complication of hospitalization in the elderly and is associated with higher risk of future dementia and progression of existing dementia, of which 70% is Alzheimer's disease (AD). 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%),
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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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.