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 7,801–7,825 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 313 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.
Controlling for demographic/health variables, individuals with aMCI, though not naMCI, showed a higher likelihood of hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia compared to cognitively normal counterparts, though no differences between aMCI/naMCI. 5 key findings →
This study highlights the role of age, gender, APOE genotype, and depressive symptoms in the presentation and progression of cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-05-04
Blood-based biomarkers (BBMs) for Alzheimer disease (AD) offer widely expanded access to biomarker-informed diagnoses in community settings that have previously lacked such resources. 1 key finding →
We found a positive main effect of CSF Aβ42/40 (p = 0.011) and p-tau181 (p = 0.012) on BC of the Dorsal Attention Network (DAN) (Figure 1). 5 key findings →
• Lower MMSE scores—even by a single point—were independently associated with a significantly higher risk of developing ADRD. • Individuals with MMSE scores between 27 and 30 should not be viewed as a uniform group. • Further studies are needed to find ways to prevent ADRD in people who are at risk but do not yet show symptoms. 5 key findings →
Within one week after dcLVA, 64.3% of patients demonstrated MMSE improvement, with further functional gains observed in continence, emotional regulation, motor coordination, and feeding independence. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neuroimage Reports·2025-04-28
The global aging population has led to a significant rise in dementia and cognitive decline, with Alzheimer's disease as the primary cause. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·NeuroSci·2026-03-20
The Benson Complex Figure Test (BCFT) is a neuropsychological tool designed to assess visuospatial construction and visual memory with lower complexity than traditional tests. 4 key findings →
During a median follow-up of 13.8 years, 3,035 incident dementia cases were recorded, including 1,304 Alzheimer's disease (AD) cases and 597 vascular dementia (VD) cases. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-11-03
The heart rate response/recovery (HRR) index, a common indicator for cardiovascular health during exercise, has been linked with neurocognitive disorders and mortality. 4 key findings →
In the last two decades, the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) has significantly advanced our understanding, technologies, and methods for detecting and diagnosing Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. 1 key finding →
The National Dementia Workforce Study was designed to improve our understanding of the individuals and systems who care for people with dementia, but designing and implementing such a study is challenging due to the large number of patient care organizations, clinical and direct care roles, and locations in which care is provided. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Cells·2025-05-08
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD) are two neurodegenerative disorders that share common genes and pathomechanisms and are referred to as the ALS-FTD spectrum. 5 key findings →
TDP-43 mislocalization and aggregation are key pathological features of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)- and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 2 key findings →
The most common clinical symptoms in FTLD-TDP-PSP were memory loss (100%) followed by parkinsonism (80%), early falls (60%), and behavioral variant FTD (60%). 5 key findings →
Here, we found that the level of histone deacetylase 7 (HDAC7) was remarkably increased in the astrocytes of AD patients and P301S tau transgenic (PS19) mice. 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.