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 776–800 of 1,138 studies (page 32 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.
These findings suggest that HB-CCT via Neurotablet can effectively enhance specific cognitive abilities in PD, supporting the role of digital, home-based interventions as feasible strategies to mitigate cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·iMetaOmics.·2025-02-10
The Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet has been related to a lower risk of dementia and better cognitive function. 4 key findings →
Our analysis revealed that 26.40% of the participants had mild cognitive impairment, whereas 48.50% demonstrated low adherence to the MIND diet. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Trials·2025-02-21
COG-T CHD is the first clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of computer-based cognitive training in patients with coronary heart disease, filling an important gap in the treatment evidence for cognitive digital therapy. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·EXCLI journal·2026-01-25
Cognitive decline and dementia represent major and growing global health challenges, driven largely by population aging and increased longevity. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Health & place·2020-08-26
In this exploratory sequential mixed-methods study, interviews with 125 adults aged 55-92 (mean age 71) living in the Minneapolis (Minnesota) metropolitan area suggested that eateries, including coffee shops and fast-food restaurants, represent popular neighborhood destinations for older adults and sources of wellbeing. 5 key findings →
In practice, knowledge and expertise are critical for effective functioning, and the available evidence suggests that older adults effectively employ specific knowledge and expertise and can gain new knowledge when it is required. 5 key findings →
Higher levels of accordance with both the DASH and Mediterranean dietary patterns were associated with consistently higher levels of cognitive function in elderly men and women over an 11-y period. 5 key findings →
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that is increasingly used in research and clinical settings to enhance the effects of cognitive training. 1 key finding →
Some evidence suggests that strategies which target multiple factors simultaneously may prove more effective than those focusing on a single mechanism or domain. 4 key findings →
The preliminary findings from this study support the possibility that aerobic fitness is positively associated with the memory performance of those individuals at most genetic risk for Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
This research indicates that diet and exercise programs have the potential to improve aspects of cognition and mood in an aging population. 4 key findings →
The relationship between obesity and cognitive impairment is important given the globally ageing population in whom cognitive decline and neurodegenerative disorders will carry grave individual, societal and financial burdens. 4 key findings →
The concept of 'cognitive reserve', and a broader theory of 'brain reserve', were originally proposed to help explain epidemiological data indicating that individuals who engaged in higher levels of mental and physical activity via education, occupation and recreation, were at lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. 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.