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 826–850 of 1,138 studies (page 34 of 46)· 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.
Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common disorder following surgery, which seriously threatens the quality of patients' life, especially the older people. 4 key findings →
In models adjusting for individual demographic and health characteristics, Hispanic composition had a significant positive association with cognitive function (standardised β=0.136, p<0.05) and moderate evidence of an association with greater cognitive decline (standardised β=-0.014, p=0.09). 5 key findings →
The study has enrolled over 1,600 normal control participants since study inception. 150 original participants continue their participation. 1 key finding →
Except for the visual-spatial memory test, nonlinear approaches provided a better fit than linear methods to model the associations of sedentary time with other cognitive outcomes. 5 key findings →
Current evidence suggests a potential for the Mediterranean diet to prevent cognitive decline, largely supported by observational studies, although randomized controlled trials show mixed results. 1 key finding →
Brain oxidative processes play a major role in age-related cognitive decline, thus consumption of antioxidant-rich foods might help preserve cognition. 3 key findings →
Closer adherence to the traditional MD is highly likely to protect against cognitive decline in this elderly Mediterranean population. 5 key findings →
Numerous epidemiological studies have strongly suggested that multinutrient approaches using the Mediterranean diet (Med diet), dietary approach to systolic hypertension (DASH) and the Mediterranean-DASH diet intervention for neurodegenerative delay (MIND) are associated with a lower risk of cognitive impairment, MCI and Alzheimer's disease in older persons. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·BMC psychiatry·2016-09-08
The associations of an active lifestyle with cognitive change over time in a dementia risk group were stronger than the effects of short-term, specific training interventions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Frontiers in medicine·2024-09-27
Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common and serious postoperative complication in elderly patients, affecting cognitive function and quality of life. 2 key findings →
Cardiovascular risk factors and lifestyle factors are associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia in observational studies, and have been targeted by multidomain interventions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·JMIR mental health·2023-10-25
These programs are considered beneficial nonpharmacological cognitive training interventions for middle-aged women at high risk of cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
The Northwestern University SuperAging Project recruits community dwellers over the age of 80 who have unusually high performance on tests of episodic memory. 1 key finding →
When analyzing multiple mobility metrics together, different combinations of mobility metrics are related to specific adverse health outcomes. 4 key findings →
Recent prospective studies provided evidence that higher adherence to a Mediterranean-type diet could be associated with slower cognitive decline, reduced risk of progression from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease (AD), reduced risk of AD, and decreased mortality in AD patients. 2 key findings →
The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between total cholesterol (TC) and cognitive performance within the context of the Framingham Heart Study, a large, community-based, prospective investigation of cardiovascular risk factors. 4 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.