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
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 2,376–2,400 of 2,931 studies published 2025 · free to read(page 96 of 118)· 30,580 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; 16,054 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.
BackgroundRecently published clinical studies suggest that blood-based biomarker tests (BBMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) provide value, but in the U.S., neither public nor private payers currently cover these tests. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Autophagy·2025-02-25
The CGG repeat expansions in the 5'-UTR regions of certain genes have been implicated in various neurodegenerative and muscular disorders. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Aging and disease·2025-04-06
Down syndrome (DS), caused by trisomy of chromosome 21 (HSA21), is a complex condition associated with neurodevelopmental impairments and accelerated brain aging, often culminating in early-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Diagnosing Atypical Parkinsonian Syndromes (APS) may be challenging due to overlapping clinical features of Parkinson's disease (PD), and the lack of pathognomonic diagnostic tests. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
Residing in neighborhoods characterized by low-income, low-vehicle access, and higher low-fat milk prices was associated with a greater risk of incident dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Animal Frontiers·2025-10-03
Processed meats are a significant source of proteins, indispensable amino acids (IAA), A and B vitamins, zinc, phosphorus, iron, and several micronutrients (Table 1). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-04-14
Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use-defined as the use of high-risk medications that can increase the risk of adverse events such as physical, cognitive, and functional decline; delirium; hospitalizations; and mortality-remains a significant concern in older adults in the US.Numerous guidelines, including the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria 1 and the STOPP criteria, 2 define PIMs as medications for which the risk of adverse effects outweighs potential benefits or are inappropriate for specific populations or disease states, such dementia or kidney disease.PIM use may be particularly harmful in populations experiencing other health care disparities, as communities experiencing other consequences of health care inequity, including limited access to physicians or pharmacies, greater financial stress, and a higher comorbidity burden, may experience disproportionate effects from the adverse consequences of PIM use. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Fourth World Journal·2025-08-13
American Indian governments located in a region west of the Cascade mountain range and the government of the state of Washington offer programs to serve the needs of a growing American Indian elder and disabled population through the services of individuals caring for family members and also individuals employed to provide care. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
The study sample was NHATS respondents who needed assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and who did not live with a spouse (N = 512). 3 key findings →
Among 1,706 participants (mean age 56 years, 62% female, 28% Black), midlife NAFLD vs no NAFLD was associated with greater late-life WMH volume (difference per SD 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.31) and faster late-life WMH increase over 6 years (difference in annual change, SD 0.28, 95% CI 0.05-0.51), suggesting accumulating vascular pathology. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Neurological Sciences·2025-08-25
In the whole sample, both PRSs were associated with the strength of correlation between GMV and different serotonin receptors and fluorodopa uptake. 2 key findings →
Research revealed a significant locus of susceptibility for LOAD on the Bridging Integrator 1 (BIN1) that is situated on chromosome 2q14.3 and is identified at the time of the most significant susceptibility gene of LOAD. 2 key findings →
Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have identified thousands of putative disease-causing variants with unknown regulatory effects. 1 key finding →
Within the limitations of measuring in vitro equilibrium binding activity of in‐house recombinant antibodies to aqueously extracted Aβ from human postmortem brain tissue, we could not discern a population of Aβ aggregates ( e.g . protofibrils) accessible to one antibody but not the other two. 3 key findings →
The anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody lecanemab received the US accelerated approval for mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of Alzheimer disease in January 2023, which was converted into traditional approval in June 2023. 5 key findings →
Our results show that lecanemab exhibits high binding affinity to amyloid-β fibril structures that have a flexible N-terminus in common, as is the case for type I, type II and murine type III amyloid-β fibril polymorphs, which resemble or are identical to human structures observed in sporadic and familial cases of Alzheimer's disease, including a case with the Arctic (E22G) mutation. 5 key findings →
Disaster risk reduction efforts in the education sector not only create a safer environment but also encourage sustainable development. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Buildings·2025-02-09
The construction sector is among the most dangerous industries, recognized for its significant rate of accidents with even more serious consequences, especially in developing countries. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Behavioral Sciences·2025-09-29
This study aims to investigate the syntactic complexity in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) by conducting a comprehensive analysis that incorporates mean dependency distance (MDD), fine-grained grammatical metrics, and dependency network structures. 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%),
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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.