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 8,376–8,400 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 336 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.
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a brief instrument developed for the screening of milder forms of cognitive impairment, having surpassed the well-known limitations of the MMSE. 4 key findings →
We aimed to determine whether genetically determined CRP was associated with hundreds of human phenotypes to guide anti-inflammatory interventions. 4 key findings →
Long-non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), RNA molecules longer than 200 nucleotides, have been involved in several biological processes and in a growing number of diseases, controlling gene transcription, pre-mRNA processing, the transport of mature mRNAs to specific cellular compartments, the regulation of mRNA stability, protein translation and turnover. 4 key findings →
Microglia are endogenous brain macrophages that show distinct phenotypes such as expression of myeloid antigens, ramified morphology, and presence within the neural parenchyma. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·World neurosurgery·2019-07-10
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) refers to any insult to the brain resulting in primary (direct) and secondary (indirect) damage to the brain parenchyma. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Neuroscience bulletin·2018-08-11
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia among the elderly, characterized by amyloid plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and neuroinflammation in the brain, as well as impaired cognitive behaviors. 4 key findings →
In most neurodegenerative disorders, including multiple sclerosis, Parkinson disease, and Alzheimer disease, a massive neuronal cell death occurs as a consequence of an uncontrolled inflammatory response, where activated astrocytes and microglia and their cytotoxic agents play a crucial pathological role. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·BMC Public Health·2020-06-10
Dementia decedents were more likely to die at home and other places and less likely to die at institutional settings over the study period. 5 key findings →
Ninety-five percent of the patients with dementia were reported to have at least one agitated behavior; 75% had at least one moderately disruptive behavior. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Healthcare·2022-04-15
This study aims to analyze the relationship between cognitive function and out-of-pocket cost of the state change of multiple chronic conditions in individuals aged 60 or older. 3 key findings →
Early-diagnosed patients (N = 421) have a lower utilization rate of inpatient skilled nursing facility, nursing home and hospitalization than late-diagnosed patients (N = 2817) after being diagnosed with AD. 5 key findings →
A growing body of literature has examined the impact of neighborhood characteristics on Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia, yet the spatial variability and relative importance of the most influential factors remain underexplored. 1 key finding →
A total of 321 people with cirrhosis (60 years, 78% men, 75% non-Hispanic White, 24% non-Hispanic African American, 4% Hispanic) were included. 45% had prior HE and 56% MHE. 5 key findings →
Stark differences across SES in service use by people with dementia may indicate different health needs and/or allude to pervasive health inequities. 3 key findings →
State case fatality ranged from 3.32% in North Carolina to 9.26% in Connecticut, but for ALs in these states it was 12.89% and 31.59%, respectively. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2026-07-14
This study aimed to test the hypothesis that multi-level factors across the five Health Ecological Model (HEM) layers are independently associated with SCD among hypertensive patients in rural China, and to identify specific associated factors within each layer. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Brain and Behavior·2023-11-20
Regression analyses showed that with the inclusion of socioenvironmental factors, the model was significant (p < .001), and sociodemographic (ethnic/race) group differences were not significant (p = .118). 4 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.