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 301–325 of 1,138 studies (page 13 of 46)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
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 65 out of 100.·BMC Geriatrics·2025-10-14
Social isolation was significantly associated with reduced cognitive ability (pooled effect = -0.07, 95% CI = -0.08, -0.05), with consistently negative effects across memory, orientation, and executive ability. 4 key findings →
No significant difference between the three groups in ADAS-Cog was found at the primary endpoint at 15 months (CPR vs health advice, β= -0·04 [95% CI -0·34 to 0·26]; RFM vs health advice, β= -0·14 [-0·44 to 0·15]; CPR vs RFM, β=0·10 [-0·19 to 0·40]) nor at the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. 1 key finding →
The higher risk of AD among blacks may stem from lower level of cognitive test performance persisting throughout the observation period rather than faster rate of late-life cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Stroke·2015-09-15
This trial found no benefit of 24-month multidomain intervention with focus on improvement in lifestyle and vascular risk factors on the incidence of poststroke cognitive decline in comparison with standard stroke care. 1 key finding →
Our pilot studies (National Institutes of Health [NIH] stage 1A) have shown that MHB is feasible, acceptable, and associated with improvement in lifestyle behavior and cognitive outcomes. 4 key findings →
PE improves global cognitive function (SMD = 0.348 [95 % CI 0.166 to 0.529]; p = 0.0001), executive function (SMD = 0.213 [95 % CI 0.026 to 0.400]; p = 0.026) and delayed recall (SMD = 0.180 [95 % CI 0.002 to 0.358]; p = 0.047). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Sleep·2016-09-01
Study objectives Sleep duration has been associated with risk of dementia and stroke, but few studies have investigated the relationship between sleep duration and brain MRI measures, particularly in middle age. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2014-01-09
Hearing impairment in older adults is independently associated in longitudinal studies with accelerated cognitive decline and incident dementia, and in cross-sectional studies, with reduced volumes in the auditory cortex. 5 key findings →
Low daytime SBP was independently associated with a greater progression of cognitive decline in older patients with dementia and MCI among those treated with AHDs. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Neurology·2004-03-01
Contrary to early case-control studies that suggested smoking protects against Alzheimer disease (AD), recent prospective studies have shown that elderly who smoke may be at increased risk for dementia. 4 key findings →
Knowledge of the relationship between various clinical characteristics and cognitive functioning is advancing, but little is known about the cognitive response to treatment for geriatric depression. 4 key findings →
In particular, systemic inflammation, vascular inflammation, and altered endothelial function may play roles in domain-specific cognitive decline of nondemented individuals. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2005-10-26
There is evidence from a population-based study of an inverse relationship between monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) energy intake and age-related cognitive decline (ARCD), while high polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) intake was positively associated with cognitive impairment in elderly subjects. 2 key findings →
MIND diet is associated with better cognitive functioning independently of common brain pathology, suggesting that the MIND diet may contribute to cognitive resilience in the elderly. 4 key findings →
Benefits of a Mediterranean diet for cognition have been suggested, but epidemiologic studies have been relatively small and of limited duration. 2 key findings →
A number of health and lifestyle factors are thought to contribute to cognitive decline associated with age but cannot be easily modified by the individual patient. 3 key findings →
10 of the 1,130 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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.
Show only studies that are free to read
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.