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 10,401–10,425 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 417 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·AIMS neuroscience·2025-01-01
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) remains a significant global health challenge, characterized by progressive neurodegeneration and a decline in cognitive abilities such as memory and learning. 4 key findings →
A 52-year-old male with early-stage Alzheimer's disease and long-standing anxiety received 30 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation sessions over 8 months and 20-month Mediterranean diet intervention. 5 key findings →
The results showed that the experimental group had a statistically significant difference of attention (TMT-B) and working memory scores, while the control group had no statistically significant difference for both attention and working memory. 3 key findings →
Instrumental assessments (Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Study [VFSS], Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing [FEES]) and the Water Swallow Test were most frequently used.ICF mapping revealed that 96.7% of tools focused on body functions, while only approximately 20% addressed participation and environmental factors. 2 key findings →
We created and hosted a dementia workshop for first and second year medical students in 2023 and 2024 aimed at increasing interest and passion for empathic dementia care. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·BMC Palliative Care·2025-05-22
The logic model and summary results explain in detail how this dementia palliative care service undertook activities relating to person-centred care, carer support, end-of-life care, accessible care, timely care, and integrated care. 3 key findings →
This has meant that fewer people are dying as a direct result of HIV, and the life expectancy for people living with HIV is almost the same as the general population in many countries. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Mortality·2026-07-23
This study explored the views and experiences of Australians living with dementia relating to voluntary assisted dying (VAD) as an end-of-life care option. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·npj Dementia·2025-08-04
By combining AI-assisted topic modelling and community engagement, this study aimed to advance the research landscape for Lewy body dementia (LBD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
Advance care planning (ACP) in dementia has been defined as a communication process adapted to the person’s capacity, which includes, and is continued with family, in our European Association for Palliative Care Delphi study Delphi study with an expert panel from 33 countries. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Figshare·2026-02-09
Appendix B. Coding tree of main categories and specific sub categories describing factors influencing readiness for advance care planning among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Figshare·2026-02-09
Appendix A. Interview guides on experiences with advance care planning, factors influencing readiness for advance care planning, and the use of conversation aids among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. 2 key findings →
Palliative care should be introduced as a culturally tailored set of services to assist families in ways that align with their values and caregiving practices. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
Antecedents of acute care use and poor prognosis may suggest late utilization of palliative care among PLWD and lack of palliative care needs screening. 1 key finding →
The recent approval of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for early Alzheimer's disease (AD) marks a major shift in clinical practice. 5 key findings →
In this update, we discuss the use of real-world data in the Haute Autorité de Santé assessment of economic evaluations, review how real-world evidence is supporting regulatory approvals in multiple myeloma, and consider lessons from the failed EVOKE trials of semaglutide in Alzheimer's disease for the broader application of target trial emulation. 1 key finding →
Dementias are expensive diseases: the net annual cost in European healthcare is about € 28.000 per case with a strong stage dependency, of which medical care accounts for about 19%. 2 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.