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 926–950 of 1,138 studies (page 38 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.
Consistent with previous research, transfer gains from the OMT condition to an untrained VM task suggest that olfaction may contribute to a‐modal representations of memory. 3 key findings →
The evidence for cognitive training in preventing cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease is varied, with some studies indicating cognitive benefits but showing limited impact on functional outcomes or disease progression. 1 key finding →
Cognitive training shows potential in preventing cognitive decline in individuals at risk for Alzheimer's disease, especially as part of multimodal interventions, though current evidence varies in quality and clarity. 1 key finding →
Cognitive training appears effective in improving cognitive functions and delaying cognitive decline in people at risk of Alzheimer's disease but requires more standardized research for conclusive evidence. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Age and Ageing·2026-03-01
AWVs were associated with reduced risks for falls (HR: 0.976 for 2 AWVs; 0.936 for ≥3 AWVs) and fractures (HR: 0.978 for 1 AWV; 0.960 for 2 AWVs; 0.927 for ≥3 AWVs), with greater reductions observed with more AVWs. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Physiology & behavior·2014-03-19
Evidence is accumulating which suggests that, in addition to leading to unprecedented rates of obesity, the current food environment is contributing to the development of cognitive impairment and dementia. 3 key findings →
With dementia incidence projected to escalate significantly within the next 25 years, the United Nations declared 2021-2030 the Decade of Healthy Ageing, emphasising cognition as a crucial element. 2 key findings →
A study was performed on patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in order to evaluate the efficacy of a combined treatment (donepezil plus cognitive training) in both cognitive processes and affective states. 2 key findings →
In the present study we tested the cognitive effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in a case of probable Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Existing neurocomputational and empirical data link deficient neuromodulation of the fronto-parietal and hippocampal-striatal circuitries with aging-related increase in processing noise and declines in various cognitive functions. 5 key findings →
Neurofeedback (NF) is a form of biofeedback that uses real-time (RT) modulation of brain activity to enhance brain function and behavioral performance. 2 key findings →
Many epidemiological studies have shown the beneficial effects of a largely plant-based diet, and the strong association between the consumption of a Mediterranean-type diet with healthy aging including a lower risk of cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
The present study explores the role of cognitive reserve, executive functions, and working memory (WM) span, as factors that might explain training outcomes in cognitive status. 4 key findings →
The positive effects of cognitive activity is closely related with neural plasticity, neurotrophin, neurotransmitter and neuromodulator signaling pathway changes. 5 key findings →
Fifteen articles were included: 8 focussed on the psychiatric symptoms caused by the COVID-19 infection and 7 investigated the impact of social isolation on older adults' neuropsychiatric symptoms. 5 key findings →
A standardized assessment battery that captures shared characteristics of mobility and cognition seen in aging and neurodegeneration may increase comparability across research studies, detection of subtle or common reversible factors, and accelerate research progress in dementia, falls, and aging-related disabilities. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·JAMA·2010-04-01
Although automobiles remain the transportation of choice for many older adults, late-life cognitive impairment and dementia often impair the ability to drive safely. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·JAMA·2010-02-01
Among nursing home residents with advanced cognitive impairment admitted to acute care hospitals, for-profit ownership, larger hospital size, and greater ICU use was associated with increased rates of feeding tube insertion, even after adjusting for patient-level characteristics. 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.