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 251–275 of 3,121 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 11 of 125)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
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.
It is currently unclear whether plasma biomarkers can be used as independent prognostic tools to predict changes associated with early Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-06-03
In the precuneus, we observed an inverted U-shaped pattern of novelty-related activity across groups, with higher activity in SCD and MCI compared with HC, but not in patients with AD who showed relatively lower activity than MCI. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Brain communications·2021-09-06
We demonstrated that higher amyloid burden as measured by both CSF amyloid beta 42/40 ratio and non-displaceable binding potential in the posterior cingulate cortex was associated with lower functional connectivity in the default mode network. 3 key findings →
Emerging plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease might be non-invasive tools to trace early Alzheimer's disease-related abnormalities such as the accumulation of amyloid-beta peptides, neurofibrillary tau tangles, glial activation and neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·NPJ digital medicine·2024-08-15
Although computerized cognitive training (CCT) is an effective digital intervention for cognitive impairment, its dose-response relationship is understudied. 2 key findings →
Approximately 30% of older adults exhibit the neuropathological features of Alzheimer's disease without signs of cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
We found that the cognitively unimpaired amyloid-β-negative individuals had significant longitudinal tau accumulation confined to the PET Braak-like stage I (3.9%) and II (2.8%) areas. 4 key findings →
Addition of CAT to the PACC provides unique information about early cognitive decline not currently captured by the episodic memory, executive function, and global cognition components and may therefore improve detection of early Aβ-related cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·BMJ open·2018-09-11
We have found evidence of a positive association between residential levels of air pollution across London and being diagnosed with dementia, which is unexplained by known confounding factors. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·BMC palliative care·2016-05-10
There is small but significant increase in access to specialist palliative care services in Western Australia, specifically in patients dying with non-cancer conditions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA·2001-02-01
This is the first report of incidence rate differences for dementia and AD in studies of 2 populations from nonindustrialized and industrialized countries using identical methods and the same group of investigators in both sites. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Drugs & aging·2019-03-01
The same daily ACB score was associated with a different degree of risk, depending on the ACB ratings of the individual drugs comprising the score. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Pharmacotherapy·2018-09-04
Study objective To examine the risks and compare the occurrences of major long-term side effects (sexual dysfunction, bone fractures, diabetes, cardiovascular morbidity, acute myocardial infarction [MI], and dementia) in patients with prostate cancer who received androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with those who did not. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Neurology·2016-10-19
Our findings demonstrate the importance of community-based patient-centered care strategies for stroke survivors that address their range of health needs and prevent more costly acute care use. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2026-03-18
Neuropathology cases included 46 Parkinson's disease and 10 dementia with Lewy bodies, and clinical cases included 173 Parkinson's disease, and 64 controls. 5 key findings →
Hallucinations, delusions, and depression were more common in DLB than in AD and, in a subgroup with longitudinal follow-up, persistent hallucinations and NPSs were associated with lower p-tau181 and p-tau231 in DLB. 5 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 27,380 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.