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 1,426–1,450 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 58 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 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-12-07
More research is needed to elucidate the neural mechanisms underlying these regional associations, which may involve motor and sensorimotor circuits hitherto largely neglected in the pathophysiology of AD. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Stroke·2018-05-11
Genetic variants within the VCAN gene may play a role in the mechanisms underlying microstructural integrity of the white matter in the brain measured as FA and MD. 4 key findings →
Study objectives We investigated the effectiveness of a lighting intervention tailored to maximally affect the circadian system as a nonpharmacological therapy for treating problems with sleep, mood, and behavior in persons with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·BMC psychiatry·2016-11-25
The expected outcome is to ensure the continuity of care from clinical practice to the patient's home, enabling also cost effectiveness and the empowerment of patient and caregiver in the care process, positively impacting on their quality of life. 1 key finding →
Enrollment began in March 2001 and ended in December 2004 when treatments were suspended because of concerns regarding cardiovascular safety of the treatments. 1 key finding →
This paper explores the rationale for a mobile phone-led intervention and details the app's effect on behavior change and subsequent clinical outcomes. 5 key findings →
The authors could not definitively demonstrate whether the addition of 2 years of in-home occupational therapy to a collaborative care management model slowed the rate of functional decline among persons with Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
The present findings provide evidence of the benefits of NIBS, especially tDCS, for beneficial effect on cognition in patients with AD. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease is the primary cause of dementia worldwide, with an increasing morbidity burden that may outstrip diagnosis and management capacity as the population ages. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2014-01-01
Some prior studies showed lower circulating BDNF in persons with Alzheimer disease (AD) compared with control participants; however, it remains uncertain whether reduced levels precede dementia onset. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Nature medicine·2019-08-26
The exact etiology of dementia is still unclear, but both genetic and lifestyle factors are thought to be key drivers of this complex disease. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-05-01
Higher baseline body mass index (BMI) and slower declining BMI in late life are associated with a reduced risk of dementia, suggesting that low BMI or a faster decline in BMI in late life may be preclinical indicators of an underlying dementing illness, especially for those who were initially overweight or obese. 3 key findings →
Preclinical studies have shown that blueberry supplementation can improve cognitive performance and neural function in aged animals and have identified associations between anthocyanins and such benefits. 3 key findings →
Folic acid supplements may sometimes therefore include vitamin B12 supplements with simultaneous administration of vitamin B12.Lesser degrees of folate inadequacy are associated with high blood levels of the amino acid homocysteine which has been linked with the risk of arterial disease, dementia and Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
The past and ongoing increase in midlife obesity prevalence will contribute significantly to the future prevalence of dementia and public health measures to reduce midlife obesity are simultaneously primary prevention measures to reduce the risk of dementia. 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.