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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 576–600 of 1,138 studies (page 24 of 46)· 27,780 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; 13,259 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 54 out of 100.·Diabetes care·1997-05-01
An increase in postload insulin only in women was associated with a decrease in cognitive function (age-adjusted regression coefficient -0.10 per 50 mU/l insulin; 95% CI -0.16 to -0.04). 4 key findings →
We tested the hypotheses that higher levels of and persistence of midlife leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) are associated long-term with lower cognitive decline and less incident dementia. 4 key findings →
Adherence to the Mediterranean-DASH for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet has previously been associated with cognitive decline and dementia. 4 key findings →
We examined the association of social activity with cognitive decline in 1138 persons without dementia at baseline with a mean age of 79.6 (SD = 7.5) who were followed for up to 12 years (mean = 5.2; SD = 2.8). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·BMC Geriatrics·2022-08-03
In comparison with participants living with others and with normal cognition, those adults living alone with cognitive impairment reported a higher percentage of catastrophic health expenditure (19.5% vs. 11.8%, respectively, P < 0.001). 5 key findings →
This diverse sample of Indigenous (1.65%), Black (11.43%), Hispanic (9.85%), and White (77.07%) older adults had a mean age of 61 (SD = 9.66) and was 52% female. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Cureus·2025-03-20
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is defined as the stage between normal cognitive changes that may occur with age and more serious symptoms that indicate dementia. 2 key findings →
Compared with the control arm (n = 36), the TEAM-V Program (n = 39) was associated with significantly improved general cognition (MoCA, P = 0.02) at 2 years. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·JMIR Serious Games·2025-10-13
Among the 92 participants in the ITT population (mean age 71.9 years; mean education 16.5 years; 61/92, 66%, women; 88/92, 96%, White), 82 (89%) completed all study activities. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·BMC medicine·2025-01-13
Since older adults spend significant time in their neighborhood environment, environmental factors such as neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage, high racial segregation, low healthy food availability, low access to recreation, and minimal social engagement may have adverse effects on cognitive function and increase susceptibility to dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-07-01
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use may help to prevent cognitive decline in older adults if started in midlife rather than late life. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Nature neuroscience·2018-01-15
A diet rich in salt is linked to an increased risk of cerebrovascular diseases and dementia, but it remains unclear how dietary salt harms the brain. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2016-02-17
Total burden of comorbid neuropathologic abnormalities, rather than any single lesion type, was the most relevant determinant of cognitive impairment in both cohorts, often despite clinical diagnosis of only AD. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·PloS one·2014-05-14
Our objective was to determine whether the consumption of green tea, coffee, or black tea influences the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older people. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Radiology·2008-06-23
Baseline brain volume was lowest in AD but did not differ significantly between MCI, subjective complaints, and control groups (P > .38). 3 key findings →
Data were used from the first wave of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA), a prospective cohort study that includes a comprehensive health assessment. 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%),
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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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.