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 7,926–7,950 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 318 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.
The study findings demonstrate high user satisfaction with telehealth in a rural memory clinic and the sound psychometric properties of the TeSS in this population. 2 key findings →
A study of item bias in standard cognitive screening measures was conducted in a sample of Afro-American, Hispanic and non-Hispanic white elderly respondents who were part of a dementia case registry study. 4 key findings →
The findings suggest that specific cultural attitudes towards the caregiving role have important implications for how carers can best be supported. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia in the elderly and the sixth leading cause of death in the United States. 1 key finding →
Accurate assessment of cognitive impairment requires comparison of cognitive performance in individuals to performance in a comparable healthy normative population. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurology. Genetics·2016-05-26
We describe the largest series of patients with TARDBP mutations presenting with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and review the cases in the literature to precisely characterize FTD diseases associated with this genotype. 2 key findings →
Hypertension is a highly prevalent condition with numerous health risks, and the incidence of hypertension is greatest among older adults. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Materia socio-medica·2018-10-01
Communication for people with dementia and with people with dementia for all persons involved in care (including family members, medical staff and therapists, and members of the community) can be very challenging. 3 key findings →
Through various manifestations, social inappropriateness is frequently the first clinical sign of a neurodegenerative process, especially in AD and bvFTD, years before noticeable impairment on classical neuropsychological assessment and brain atrophy on imaging. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Gerontology·2020-09-09
The number of elderly is growing rapidly, including those that struggle with cognitive decline and, consequently, activities of daily living. 5 key findings →
Machine learning has become ubiquitous and a key technology on mining electronic health records (EHRs) for facilitating clinical research and practice. 2 key findings →
The non-fluent/agrammatic variant of primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA) and the behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) are focal neurodegenerative disorders belonging to the FTD-spectrum clinical syndromes. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·PloS one·2020-10-16
The white matter FC decreased in late MCI and AD dementia patients compared to CN participants, and this decrease was correlated with cognitive measures. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized pathologically by the presence of neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid beta (Aβ) plaques in the brain. 5 key findings →
Longer age-related decision making latencies may reflect a greater need for working memory and increased self-monitoring in older subjects. 1 key finding →
The Cache County Study of Memory in Aging (CCMS) is an epidemiological study of Alzheimer's disease (AD), mild cognitive disorders, and aging in a population of exceptionally long-lived individuals (7th to 11th decade). 1 key finding →
The results suggest that it is possible to automatically quantify the task quality of smart home activities and perform limited assessment of the cognitive health of individual if smart home activities are properly chosen and learning algorithms are appropriately trained. 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.