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 10,301–10,325 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 413 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.
Importantly, delirium is not merely a transient cognitive fluctuation; it is independently associated with increased short- and long-term mortality, longer hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and persistent cognitive impairment comparable to mild dementia[4,5]. 5 key findings →
BackgroundWith the growing demand for dementia-friendly care environments, existing smart room designs often lack systematic methods to translate user needs into functional solutions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Ageing and Society·2025-09-24
Voluntary assisted dying (VAD) is an end-of-life care option available to eligible Australians living with a terminal condition, though people living with dementia are typically ineligible to choose VAD as part of their end-of-life care. 5 key findings →
A balanced understanding of dementia’s impact (acknowledging both continuity and loss, alternatives and socially constructed aspects) better reflects the realities of dementia and creates new possibilities for supportive care practices to improve pain management and quality of life. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Cureus·2025-08-27
Prion diseases are fatal neurological disorders characterized by the accumulation of abnormal proteins in the central nervous system, leading to rapid neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →
These inputs and activities were shown in the logic model to result in short, medium, and long-term outcomes, including reduced healthcare resource use and increased quality of life for people with dementia at the end of life. 2 key findings →
This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of regular dental scaling by evaluating the association between the frequency of dental scaling and the risk of dementia in individuals with moderate to severe periodontal disease. 2 key findings →
The prevalence of hypertension showed statistically significant spatial clustering (global Moran’s I=0.442, p<.001), with high-high clusters concentrated in rural eup-myeon areas and low-low clusters in urban dong areas. 4 key findings →
Our case series highlighted the relevance of neurological comorbidities in BP patients; although the pathogenesis is still to be elucidated, the neuroinflammation present in neurodegenerative diseases could explain the neurocutaneous link and the chronological relationship between these entities. 3 key findings →
The precise regulation of DSCR gene expression is crucial to maintain the brain homeostasis, especially in those areas with high levels of gene expression associated with a remarkable process of learning and cognition. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Neurologia·2023-04-07
We performed a retrospective analysis of the patients assessed at our memory unit for whom Alzheimer disease (AD) cerebrospinal fluid biomarker results were available. 4 key findings →
A Cognitive Task Force (CTF) was established for the MissionAD program with the aim of reducing the screen failure (SF) rate to ∼30% and thereby reduce unnecessary subject burden, site burden, and excess trial costs. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) disproportionately impact older Black American adults, with diet-related cardiometabolic conditions contributing to increased risk. 1 key finding →
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.