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 8,101–8,125 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 325 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.
A 78-year-old man with moderate Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia was treated with nasal-foralumab, a fully human anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody, as part of a Food and Drug Administration expanded-access-program, based on previously demonstrated efficacy of anti-CD3 antibody in animal models. 18 F-PBR06-PET, utilizing a second-generation 18-kDa-translocator-protein ligand targeting microglia, showed diffuse reduction of radiotracer uptake throughout the brain, following 3 months of nasal-foralumab compared with baseline. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Genetics in Medicine·2025-07-03
A positive family history was reported in 42% of patients in the Alzheimer disease cohort, 48% of patients in the frontotemporal dementia cohort, and 34% in those with other dementia types. 5 key findings →
Overall PiB-PET uptake increased during the first two years (before ARIA-E) and decreased during the last two years (including ARIA-E episodes) (0.03±0.05 vs. -0.04±0.04 SUVR/year, p-value=0.01, Figure 2). 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder with multifaceted risk factors, including diet and metabolic dysfunction. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·SmartSys·2025-03-01
Flexible and wearable electronics are attracting surging attention due to their potential applications in human health monitoring and precision therapies. 5 key findings →
The global food system faces unprecedented challenges, including climate-driven agricultural instability, rising malnutrition, and consumer demand for sustainable yet appealing products. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) together contribute to almost 90 % of all dementia cases leading to major health challenges of our time with a substantial global socioeconomic burden. 1 key finding →
Lewy body dementia (LBD), which includes dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD), is characterized by cognitive decline, sleep disturbances, motor dysfunction, and other debilitating clinical symptoms. 2 key findings →
To balance high-quality measurement of cognitive domains and maintain the ability to perform meaningful cross-national comparisons, each HCAP should include a common set of at least three to four continuously distributed test items per domain that can link domains across studies. 5 key findings →
Here we show, psychiatric behavioural symptoms and difficulties in activities of daily living, fluctuate alongside cognitive decline. 677 activities of daily living and 632 psychiatric behaviour questionnaires are available at intervals of 3 months. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·ACS Omega·2025-07-16
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Responders (R) and Non-Responders (NR) to lymphatic-venous anastomosis (LVA) surgery for relief of cognitive impairment show significant difference in their p-tau181/Aβ42 ratios via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) of their cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). 3 key findings →
Cognitive decline is a condition affecting almost one sixth of the elder population and is widely regarded as one of the first manifestations of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Healthcare·2025-10-20
Overall, 75.9% of the caregivers reported experiencing at least a mild burden, and the levels of depression, anxiety, and stress among the caregivers were higher than expected. 5 key findings →
The rising prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease–related dementias has led to renewed public discourse and policy changes in response to the care needs of persons living with dementia and their care partners. 5 key findings →
We previously demonstrated that PST/DSJ improved caregiver burden and depressive symptoms among caregivers of adults with Alzheimer’s Disease and related dementias (ADRD), regardless of the number of sessions or boosters received. 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.