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 1,151–1,175 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 47 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.
Angiotensin receptor blockers are associated with a significant reduction in the incidence and progression of Alzheimer's disease and dementia compared with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or other cardiovascular drugs in a predominantly male population. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·PloS one·2016-03-10
Periodontitis is common in the elderly and may become more common in Alzheimer's disease because of a reduced ability to take care of oral hygiene as the disease progresses. 5 key findings →
Although the performance of the different methods still has room for improvement, the results are promising and this methodology has a great potential as a support tool for clinicians and healthcare professionals. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Innovation in aging·2022-01-06
There was some evidence that the use of smartphones and tablets could aid cognitive function in older adults without cognitive impairment, particularly executive function and processing speed. 1 key finding →
The insular cortex is proposed to function as a central brain hub characterized by wide-spread connections and diverse functional roles. 5 key findings →
We developed machine learning prediction models for post-operative delirium that performed better than chance and are comparable with traditional stepwise logistic regression. 1 key finding →
Older adults with cognitive disorders can learn smartphone-based memory strategies and doing so benefits prospective memory functioning and independence. 2 key findings →
We conducted the largest metabolome investigation of dementia to date, for the first time revealed the metabolite importance ranking, and highlighted the contribution of plasma metabolites for dementia prediction. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2018-06-01
Compared with controls, patients with idiopathic REM sleep behaviour disorder had decreased colonic 11 C-donepezil uptake (-0·322, 95% CI -0·112 to -0·531; p=0·0020), 123 I-MIBG heart:mediastinum ratio (-0·508, -0·353 to -0·664; p 18 F-DOPA uptake (Ki; -0·0023, -0·0009 to -0·0037; p=0·0013). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·PLoS genetics·2008-09-19
The TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) has been identified as the major disease protein in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin inclusions (FTLD-U), defining a novel class of neurodegenerative conditions: the TDP-43 proteinopathies. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2015-08-01
The best cluster solution found was based on orthostatic hypotension, mild cognitive impairment, rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD), depression, anxiety, and Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part II and Part III scores at baseline. 1 key finding →
These studies fundamentally deepen our understanding of AD progression and its underlying genetic basis, which in turn informs and improves clinical trial design. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2015-11-01
Baseline CSF levels of NGRN in patients with AD (median level, 2381 pg/mL [interquartile range, 1651-3416 pg/mL]) were higher than in cognitively normal participants (median level, 1712 pg/mL [interquartile range, 1206-2724 pg/mL]) (P = .04). 3 key findings →
In this longitudinal study, we included 396 cognitively normal to dementia subjects with 18 F-Florbetapir/ 18 F-Florbetaben-amyloid-PET, 18 F-Flortaucipir-tau-PET and ~ 2-year cognitive follow-up. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·PloS one·2013-06-10
Markers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are being widely sought with a number of studies suggesting blood measures of inflammatory proteins as putative biomarkers. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Brain communications·2020-02-06
Regions with early signs of elevated amyloid β uptake were used to form an early, focal composite and compared to a commonly used global composite, in a separate validation sample. 3 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.