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 676–700 of 1,138 studies (page 28 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.
Selenium is a trace element associated with antioxidant activity and is considered to be a protective agent against free radicals through enhanced enzyme activity. 5 key findings →
Hispanics/Latinos are the largest ethnic/racial group in the United States and at high risk for Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD). 1 key finding →
The association between educational attainment and decline in cognitive function over an interval of 1 year was examined for 14,883 subjects 18 years and older in the National Institute of Mental Health Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study. 4 key findings →
Clinical studies have shown alterations in metabolic profiles when patients with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease dementia were compared to cognitively normal subjects. 4 key findings →
Neighborhood disadvantage was associated with worse cognitive performance on memory, executive function, processing speed, and preclinical Alzheimer's tests on both datasets. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-03-06
In their study, Chen et al 1 examined the association between apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype and longitudinal cognitive trajectories among middle-aged and older East Asian adults participating in the Healthy Aging Longitudinal Study of Taiwan (HALST).Although sporadic late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD) is polygenic, APOE remains the strongest genetic determinant of AD risk, with carriers of the APOE ε4 allele having increased odds of developing AD dementia in a dose-dependent manner compared with APOE ε3 homozygotes. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2025-01-23
All Hispanic/Latino immigrant adults, regardless of age at migration, have a cognitive health disadvantage (at each visit and over time) relative to U.S./mainland-born Hispanic/Latino individuals. 5 key findings →
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a multifactorial 'healthy brain ageing cognitive training program' for Parkinson's disease. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Nutrients·2021-06-30
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other dementias are now the seventh leading cause of death in the world and are projected to affect 115.4 million people by 2050. 1 key finding →
Computer-based cognitive training might have beneficial effects on the general cognitive functions in early stage of Alzheimer's dementia. 4 key findings →
Adherence to the MIND diet was associated with better cognitive function at baseline and over 8 years of follow-up; however, MIND diet was not associated with 8-year cognitive trajectory. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·GeroScience·2023-05-26
The secreted peptide adropin is highly expressed in human brain tissues and correlates with RNA and proteomic risk indicators for dementia. 2 key findings →
Twenty-five of 33 (75.8%) participants in the qigong group and 26 of 33 (78.8%) participants in the control group completed the 1-year exercise programs. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is generally understood as primarily affecting cognition while sparing motor function, at least until the later stages of the disease. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neuropsychology·2007-09-01
The current study examined the relationship between cognitive function and falls in older people who did not meet criteria for dementia or mild cognitive impairment (N = 172). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Behavioural neurology·2020-02-12
Physical activity improves overall health and reduces the risk of many negative health outcomes and may be effective in improving cognition, independent functioning, and psychological health in older adults. 1 key finding →
9 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 9. The same 9 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.