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 1,476–1,500 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 60 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.
Beneficiaries with dementia who had lower levels of continuity of care were younger, had a higher income, and had more comorbid medical conditions. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2012-12-12
At baseline measurements, amyloid burden does not distinguish between cognitively impaired and unimpaired subjects with PD without dementia, but our data suggest that amyloid contributes to cognitive, but not motor, decline over time. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·1998-05-01
We examined the neuropsychological test performance of a randomly selected community sample of English-speaking non-Hispanic African American and white elders in northern Manhattan. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Diabetes care·2019-05-21
Diabetes status, poor glycemic control, and longer diabetes duration were associated with worse cognitive outcomes over a median follow-up of 5 years. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2015-11-01
(N = 382 at baseline) had a mean (SD) age of 75.5 (7.0) years; 61.8% were women; and 41.4% were white, 29.6% African American, 25.1% Hispanic, and 3.9% other race/ethnicity. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2021-06-15
Depression is linked to an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia; therefore, failing to diagnose and treat LLD in later life may have significant health implications. 4 key findings →
High BP accelerates gait slowing in well-functioning older adults over a long period of time, even for those who control their BP or develop hypertension later in life. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2017-09-01
Overall, birth in an HSMS was associated with a 28% higher risk of dementia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.46) adjusted for age, sex, and race. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2020-10-01
Study results suggest that, after diagnosis, rural Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD spend more time in nursing homes and less time in the community, receive less home health care, and have shorter survival than their urban counterparts. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Stroke·2011-08-11
Baseline DBP and longitudinal increases in DBP were independently associated with a greater WMHV, and the association between DBP and WMHV was greatest among blacks. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2023-07-01
This cohort study using pooled data from 6 cohort studies found that incident MI was not associated with a decrease in global cognition, memory, or executive function at the time of the event compared with no MI but was associated with faster declines in global cognition, memory, and executive function over time. 5 key findings →
Complexity at multiple levels needs to be understood and overcome to develop effective treatments and preventions for cognitive decline and AD dementia. 1 key finding →
White matter lesions are frequently found on cerebral MRI scans of elderly people and are thought to be important in the pathogenesis of dementia. 5 key findings →
Severe psoriasis is associated with an increased risk of death from a variety of causes, with cardiovascular death being the most common aetiology. 4 key findings →
Previous studies from our group have shown that language changes may be reflected in connected speech production in the earliest stages of typical Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Early diagnosis of cognitive disorders in older adults is a major healthcare priority with benefits to patients, families, and health systems. 1 key finding →
Strikingly gene-expression, network-based analysis and cell type deconvolution approaches revealed a consistent immune signature in the brain and blood of female AD patients that was absent in males. 5 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.