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 301–325 of 1,139 studies (page 13 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 64 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2010-08-01
Atherosclerosis of the intracranial arteries is an independent and important risk factor for dementia, suggesting potentially reversible pathways unrelated to Alzheimer pathology and stroke through which vascular changes may influence dementia risk. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-02-20
Across the cohort of 212 individuals with SCD+ (M(Age) = 69.17 years, F 42.45%), 258 individuals with MCI (M(Age) = 72.93, F 43.80%), and 195 individuals with dementia (M(Age) = 74.07, F 48.72%), no main effect of education (ß = 0.52, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.58), but a significant education-by-group interaction on CL values, was found ( p = 0.024) using linear regression modeling. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2004-11-01
Employing time-dependent proportional hazards modeling, the authors found no significant association between statin use and incident dementia or probable AD. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2014-01-01
Some prior studies showed lower circulating BDNF in persons with Alzheimer disease (AD) compared with control participants; however, it remains uncertain whether reduced levels precede dementia onset. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Nature medicine·2019-08-26
The exact etiology of dementia is still unclear, but both genetic and lifestyle factors are thought to be key drivers of this complex disease. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-05-01
Higher baseline body mass index (BMI) and slower declining BMI in late life are associated with a reduced risk of dementia, suggesting that low BMI or a faster decline in BMI in late life may be preclinical indicators of an underlying dementing illness, especially for those who were initially overweight or obese. 3 key findings →
The past and ongoing increase in midlife obesity prevalence will contribute significantly to the future prevalence of dementia and public health measures to reduce midlife obesity are simultaneously primary prevention measures to reduce the risk of dementia. 2 key findings →
Obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 ) at age 50 years (hazard ratio = 1.93; 1.35-2.75) but not at 60 or 70 years was associated with risk of dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2010-01-01
Incidence of all-cause dementia is very high in people aged 90 years and older and continues to increase exponentially with age in both men and women. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Diabetes care·2019-05-21
Diabetes status, poor glycemic control, and longer diabetes duration were associated with worse cognitive outcomes over a median follow-up of 5 years. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2017-09-01
Overall, birth in an HSMS was associated with a 28% higher risk of dementia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.46) adjusted for age, sex, and race. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2023-07-01
This cohort study using pooled data from 6 cohort studies found that incident MI was not associated with a decrease in global cognition, memory, or executive function at the time of the event compared with no MI but was associated with faster declines in global cognition, memory, and executive function over time. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2004-08-01
We conclude that patients with mild cognitive impairment and depression are at more than twice the risk of developing dementia of Alzheimer type as those without depression. 4 key findings →
Evidence strongly supports the important role of insulin resistance in cognitive decline and dementia and suggests that insulin sensitizers may protect against cognitive decline in diabetic and pre-diabetic individuals. 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 27,780 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.