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 401–425 of 1,138 studies (page 17 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 61 out of 100.·PloS one·2015-04-17
There is evidence that physical activity (PA) is of cognitive benefit to the ageing brain, but little is known on the effect in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
The global metabolic disorder, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), significantly increases the risk of cognitive dysfunction, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →
The loss of occlusal support may lead to cognitive dysfunction through the reduction of chewing-related stimuli, aggravation of nerve damage, and long-term inflammatory stress. 1 key finding →
Baseline plasma MCP-1 levels were associated with longitudinal declines in overall cognitive and episodic memory performance in older adults over a 4-year follow-up. 5 key findings →
These findings do not provide evidence of improvement in behavioral symptoms, functional status, or QoL of hearing impaired AD patients and their caregivers after 6 months of HA use. 4 key findings →
While the role of diet and nutrition in cognitive health and prevention of dementia in older adults has attracted much attention, the efficacy of different dietary patterns remains uncertain. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neuroepidemiology·2005-08-15
Linking the ADAMS dementia clinical assessment data to the wealth of available longitudinal HRS data on health, health care utilization, informal care, and economic resources and behavior, will provide a unique opportunity to study the onset of CIND and dementia in a nationally representative population-based sample, as well as the risk factors, prevalence, outcomes, and costs of CIND and dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-10-08
In a middle-aged, at-risk cohort, a physically active lifestyle is associated with an attenuation of the deleterious influence of age on key biomarkers of AD pathophysiology. 3 key findings →
Recent findings of a linkage between high blood pressure (BP) and later development of dementia have given new prospects on cerebral target-organ damage in hypertension and have added substance to the concept of "preventable senility." 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·PloS one·2012-06-29
Survival analyses indicated that subjects with the lowest EF scores were more likely to fall sooner and more likely to experience multiple falls during the 66 months of follow-up (p Conclusions/significance These findings demonstrate that among community-living older adults, the risk of future falls was predicted by performance on EF and attention tests conducted 5 years earlier. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·BMJ open·2015-04-02
Online literature databases and trial registers, previous systematic reviews and leading journals were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Nutrients·2017-08-30
Vitamin C plays a role in neuronal differentiation, maturation, myelin formation and modulation of the cholinergic, catecholinergic, and glutaminergic systems. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2023-08-30
Among 1614 older adults (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [8.7] years; 980 women [60.7%]), 853 were Mexican American (mean [SD] age, 63.9 [7.9] years; 566 women [66.4%]), and 761 were non-Hispanic White (mean [SD] age, 69.1 [8.7] years; 414 women [54.4%]). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-08-07
Among 809 participants (mean [SD] age at death, 91.3 [6.1] years; 538 [72%] female; mean [SD] follow-up, 7.2 [4.4] years), HS was present in 82 (10.1%) participants; 71 participants (9%) had both HS and LATE-NC, and in the scored subset, 43 participants (14%) had moderate and 35 participants (12%) had severe hippocampal neuronal loss. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·BJPsych Open·2025-11-01
A total of 346 of 374 (92.5%) intervention arm participants received some intervention (reach), and 305 of 374 (81.6%) attended ≥5 main sessions (predefined as adhering: dose). 5 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.