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 951–975 of 1,246 studies (page 39 of 50)· 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.
Within the 440 included surveys, respondents particularly over-estimated frailty prevalence in older hospitalised patients, with two-thirds choosing between 41 and 80% prevalence, when the literature suggests only 23-46%, but paradoxically underestimated the frequency of frailty in people with delirium (more than three quarters of responses across 21-80%; literature suggests 71-93%). 5 key findings →
Denmark is experiencing unprecedented population ageing, highlighting the importance of understanding age-related diseases, including dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Sage Open Aging·2025-12-01
This study explored digital health literacy skills, self-efficacy in utilizing digital health resources, and self-efficacy in managing personal health among caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Brain Sciences·2025-06-13
On the test set, MICE imputation yielded the highest accuracy for both RF (0.76) and LR (0.81), while SVM performed best with median imputation (0.81). 5 key findings →
Using raw data from the CFD and the GLMnet algorithm, we could accurately differentiate between DEM vs. HC with accuracies ranging up to 94.0%. 4 key findings →
Our findings indicate that the severity of cognitive impairment was significantly associated with an increased risk of falls in patients with dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·npj Dementia·2025-10-10
Sex influences cognitive aging and dementia, yet research on the impact of female-specific factors, such as parity and fetal sex, on later-life cognition remains limited and equivocal. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-01-01
EOD participants reported the highest mean levels of all psychosocial outcomes (e.g., everyday discrimination score of 8.3 in EOD vs 4.6 in LOD and 6.8 in no-dementia). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Frontiers in Stroke·2025-05-09
Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability globally, with significant long-term impacts such as post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI). 1 key finding →
The objective of this study was to investigate the cost of care for patients with a primary diagnosis of dementia in Swiss hospitals under the new TARPSY reimbursement system. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Retrovirology·2006-05-19
Despite the use of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), neuronal cell death remains a problem that is frequently found in the brains of HIV-1-infected patients. 1 key finding →
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with multiple comorbidities, including diabetic retinopathy (DR) and cognitive decline, and T2D patients have a significantly higher risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Neurology·1990-02-01
From a series of 460 dementia patients referred to a regional brain bank, 14 (3%) patients had a pathologic diagnosis of primary degeneration of the brain involving multiple sites (frontoparietal cortex, striatum, medial thalamus, substantia nigra, and hypoglossal nucleus), with cell loss and astrocytosis. 5 key findings →
The findings show high rates of new onset dementia, increasing markedly with age, and suggest rapid acceleration of one or more processes that is common in advanced age. 2 key findings →
"Sundowning" in demented individuals, as distinct clinical phenomena, is still open to debate in terms of clear definition, etiology, operationalized parameters, validity of clinical construct, and interventions. 2 key findings →
Different neuropsychological populations implicate diverse cortical regions in semantic memory: semantic dementia (SD) is characterized by atrophy of the anterior temporal lobes whilst poor comprehension in stroke aphasia is associated with prefrontal or temporal-parietal infarcts. 3 key findings →
Although hypertension is well known as a cause of vascular dementia (VaD), recent findings highlight the role of hypertension in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) as well as mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 1 key finding →
One challenge faced by many family members caring for persons with dementia is lack of information about how to take care of others and themselves. 5 key findings →
10 of the 1,233 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.