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 8,076–8,100 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 324 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.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, supply and demand forcast models predicted significant nursing shortages across the United States through 2030 due to both an aging patient population and nursing workforce.1, 2 However, during the pandemic, we saw an exodus of younger nurses in addition to early retirements. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-07-07
The simulated cohort was informed by 111 600 PWH enrolled in Medicare at the start of 2026 (mean [SD] age, 70.9 [5.0] years; 77% male). 5 key findings →
Annual Wellness Visit utilization was associated with an increased probability of new dementia diagnosis with effects varying by racial group (categorized as white, black, Hispanic/Latino, or Asian based on Social Security Administration data). 5 key findings →
Higher segregation, indicated by lower tract and county-level interaction, was associated with better cognitive and everyday functioning levels but faster rates of decline. 5 key findings →
Associations of neighbourhood NO2 level, walkability, public open space and social fragmentation with dementia incidence and estimated future risk of dementia were statistically significant, indicating the potential to reduce the risk through changes in built and social environments. 3 key findings →
Key independent variables included the interaction of NH quality (measured by 5‐star rating) and race (i.e. black versus white), and interaction of NH quality, race, and state Medicaid dementia‐related add‐on policies. 4 key findings →
Participants racialized as Black who lived in places with higher levels of area‐level structural socioeconomic racism experienced lower levels of cognition at baseline and at varying time points in the six‐year period—compared to those in places with lower structural socioeconomic racism. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Transplantation·2021-01-21
Chronic dialysis is associated with relatively high mortality and increased comorbidities that may render the patient unsuitable for renal transplantation. 5 key findings →
Using a large and diverse community‐based cohort, we demonstrate that ethno‐racial differences in AD‐specific plasma biomarkers are, in part, due to modifiable health and comorbidity factors. 2 key findings →
As a result, NHS data provide a huge and invaluable resource of routinely collected primary (e.g. visits to GP practices) and secondary (e.g. hospital admissions, outpatient appointments, A&E attendances) healthcare data covering near-100% of the population of England. 5 key findings →
Fifty-three scans (31.74%) were rated amyloid-positive by all readers, while 62 scans (37.13%) were rated as amyloid-negative by all readers. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-12-07
Nowadays, there is an unmet need for reliable and minimally-invasive diagnosis tools capable of detecting Alzheimer's disease at early stages. 3 key findings →
Fourteen participants (21.5%) converted to MCI, and 24 (36.9%) were classified as Prog-1.Plasma biomarkers did not show consistent predictive performance across predefined endpoints (all p>0.05), although NfL demonstrated modest discrimination for MCI conversion (area under the curve [AUC] 0.686, p=0.008).Hippocampal volume demonstrated significant discriminative performance for MCI conversion (AUC 0.765, p=0.016) and Prog-1 (AUC 0.933, p<0.001).For Prog-2, hippocampal volume showed high discrimination (AUC 0.952, p<0.001).WMH grade also demonstrated significant discrimination for MCI conversion (AUC 0.835, p<0.001) and Prog-1 (AUC 0.857, p<0.001).Bootstrap analyses (1,000 iterations) tended to show higher AUC estimates for imaging markers compared with plasma biomarkers. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurology Genetics·2025-01-29
Alzheimer disease (AD), the most common dementing syndrome in the United States, is currently established by the presence of amyloid-β and tau protein biomarkers in the setting of clinical cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Annals of Neurology·2026-08-03
Damaging nonsynonymous ABCA1 variants had differential AD risk effects between APOE genotype groups and exhibited interaction effects with APOE ε2 and ε4. 5 key findings →
These findings highlight normative modelling's utility in revealing the complex interplay among sex, age, and AD risk in shaping brain structure and cognition in later life. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Brain Communications·2025-01-01
None of the genetically proxied functional network features were significantly associated with neurodegenerative outcomes (adjusted P value >0.05), despite sufficient calculated power. 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.