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 2,476–2,500 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 100 of 127)· 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.
Serious events, as indicated by a hospital admission or death, are frequent following the short-term use of antipsychotic drugs in older adults with dementia. 2 key findings →
Elderly co-resident caregivers for stroke and dementia patients experience similar degrees of burden and high levels of psychological morbidity. 4 key findings →
The Minority Aging Research Study (MARS) is a longitudinal, epidemiologic cohort study of decline in cognitive function and risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in older African Americans, with brain donation after death added as an optional component for those willing to consider organ donation. 1 key finding →
Baseline cognition was poorer in individuals born and residing in the South, particularly those attending desegregated schools at age 12. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·BMC public health·2012-07-27
AMI is the first French longitudinal study on health and aging set up in a population of elderly farmers living in rural area through a multidisciplinary approach. 5 key findings →
Age-related hearing loss (ARHL), also called presbycusis, is a progressive disorder affecting hearing functions and among the elderly has been recognized as the third most frequent condition. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2013-07-26
Computational anatomy with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is well established as a noninvasive biomarker of Alzheimer's disease (AD); however, there is less certainty about its dependency on the staging of AD. 4 key findings →
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has often been studied in its association with dementia, yet higher rates of reversion to normal cognition than progression to dementia suggest that MCI does not necessarily lead to dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Clinical chemistry·2022-12-01
Previous studies reported the value of blood-based biomarkers in predicting Alzheimer disease (AD) progression among individuals with different disease stages. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-07-14
Sleep spindles (SPs) and slow oscillations (SOs) are linked to cognition and neurodegeneration; however, their relationship with CSF orexin concentrations in symptomatic AD has not been characterized. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Aging & mental health·2011-05-24
Self-efficacy is the belief that one can perform a specific task or behaviour and is a modifiable attribute which has been shown to influence health behaviours. 4 key findings →
Research in gerontology has demonstrated mixed effects of social support on cognitive decline and dementia: Social support has been shown to be protective in some studies, but not in others. 4 key findings →
Given the recent acknowledgement of the complex mixed pathologies that contribute to the clinical expression of dementia, various cohort studies have aimed to examine Alzheimer's disease and cerebrovascular disease as comorbid pathologies, with neuroimaging playing a central role in these studies. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Age and Ageing·2025-08-01
A positive 4AT (≥1) on admission demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.87 and specificity of 0.71 when compared to a clinical diagnosis of dementia. 3 key findings →
Two independently constructed %p‐tau217 plasma clocks had strong correlations with actual time measures and were consistent across the two cohorts. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Sensory Neuroscience·2026-06-01
Hearing aid use was associated with a modestly lower risk of probable dementia overall (Hazard Ratios, HR, 0.91), but the association was confined to participants reporting improvements in hearing (HR 0.86), with no apparent benefit among those reporting poor improvement in hearing (HR 0.98). 2 key findings →
We will assess the utility of auditory perceptual tests, both alone and combined with blood-based biomarkers (pTau217 and NfL), for diagnosis and prognosis in individuals with cognitive symptoms. 3 key findings →
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.