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 1,051–1,075 of 1,246 studies (page 43 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.
The findings from this study provide clear evidence that there is a greater need for resources to support SC residents with ADRD and their caregivers in the Pee Dee and Upstate regions. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·NeuroSci·2026-06-10
= 0.002). A sharp transient increase occurred in 2020, attributable to pandemic-related factors including disproportionate COVID-19 mortality among older adults with neurodegenerative conditions, care disruptions, and changes in death-certificate coding practices. 5 key findings →
The incidence of dementia declined by 26% percent (95% confidence interval: -26.2; -25.3), from 2020 per 100 000 insured individuals in 2015 to 1500 per 100 000 in 2022. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·Frontiers in Dementia·2026-04-10
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly expanding into dementia-related health and social care, with proposed applications ranging from early risk detection and monitoring to care coordination and service planning. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·JMIR Serious Games·2025-03-03
Significant differences in 64% of engagement-related behaviors were found between groups, notably in torso movements, voice modulation, facial expressions, and concentration. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·Frontiers in Dementia·2025-02-04
Informed consent is a critical ethical requirement in research, ensuring the protection of participants' rights and promoting their wellbeing and autonomy. 5 key findings →
Dementia is a progressive condition that affects cognition, communication, mobility, and independence, posing growing challenges for individuals, caregivers, and healthcare systems. 5 key findings →
The attributes of concepts of social frailty and social isolation overlap, including being alone and having limited or less social activities, engagements or interactions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·Journal of Pragmatics·2025-01-20
This study examines the challenges caregivers face in interpreting the bodily behaviors of individuals with late-stage dementia as interactional signals. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·Frontiers in Aging·2025-06-26
A comparative analysis of dysphagia pathologies across the three dementia types revealed a relatively mixed picture of various dysphagia findings in all dementia types. 5 key findings →
This study describes the development of the Barriers to Healthcare Access Survey (BHAS) used to evaluate seven barrier factors believed to influence healthcare access for elderly Hispanics with memory or cognitive problems. 2 key findings →
We conducted a single-stage community-based study of dementia on all registered residents > or =65 years in age in a rural Chinese community. 2 key findings →
Ever since Kiloh (1961)[2] coined the term pseudo-dementia, it has been used a little loosely for describing the cognitive deficits in depression, especially, which is found in old age. 5 key findings →
Mean performance on knowledge of dementia risk factor mitigation strategies significantly increased after viewing the animation (p < .001), with a clinically meaningful effect (mean change = 3.63). 3 key findings →
As the rates of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD and related dementias (ADRD) in the United States steadily rise, so too does the demand for informal caregiving. 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.
Dementia of frontal lobe typeJournal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 1988-03-01 · usefulness score 45/100
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.