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 2,751–2,775 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 111 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.
Early identification of individuals at increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a pre-dementia state, can provide a critical window for prompt intervention to prevent or reverse disease progression. 5 key findings →
Males were more likely than females to present with two or more core DLB clinical features 2 years prior to obtaining a diagnosis of dementia. 5 key findings →
In the central Lewy body diseases (LBDs) Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), by the time parkinsonism or cognitive dysfunction manifests, substantial central neurodegeneration has already occurred. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·IEEE Access·2025-01-01
Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a leading neurodegenerative disorder, progresses from an intermediary stage known as Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), characterized by measurable cognitive decline with retained functional independence. 1 key finding →
Among 558 amnestic MCI participants (168 ChEI users), ChEI users exhibited higher risk of progression to AD dementia (hazard ratio = 1.77, 95% confidence interval: 1.15 to 2.73, p = 0.001). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Tomography·2025-03-19
< 0.001). Shape features demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy for conversion, with areas under the curve of 0.891 at baseline and 0.898 at 2 years. 5 key findings →
Disruptions in GABAergic activity and alterations in gamma oscillations are key pathological features of AD associated with amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques. 3 key findings →
In this retrospective, confounder-adjusted study, anticoagulation was associated with slower cognitive/functional decline and lower hospitalization/mortality risk in AF and dementia patients. 3 key findings →
Odds ratios for death, dementia, and delirium using anticholinergic-polypharmacy pseudoscales (median = 1.09-1.10) were greater than those of general-polypharmacy pseudoscales (1.05-1.06). 3 key findings →
The FCAAS-4 achieved a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.74 (95% confidence interval: 0.71-0.77) and a Harrell generalized c-index of 0.72 (0.70-0.75). 5 key findings →
The study included 25 patients with iCAA (age, 44±11 years), 31 patients with sCAA (age, 75±5 years), 28 patients with AD (age, 71±8 years) and 30 controls (age, 72±8 years) from 9 case descriptions and 1 cohort study. 5 key findings →
A covariate-adjusted linear mixed model for the intention-to-treat sample (N = 353; mean age = 69.7) revealed a significant positive change in dementia literacy at 6 months (standardized change = 0.246; p = 0.012) and a significant improvement in self-efficacy at 12 months (standardized change = 0.157; p = 0.008). 5 key findings →
Significant improvement over time was observed in aggregated domain specific composite scores of episodic and semantic memory and spatial abilities. 5 key findings →
BackgroundThe progression of cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) leads to cognitive decline, which can be categorized into subcortical vascular mild cognitive impairment (svMCI) and vascular dementia (VaD).ObjectiveThis research aimed to examine the structural changes in gray (GM) and white matter (WM) in the brain across the disease spectrum. 5 key findings →
This study aimed to examine the associations between nursing home (NH) quality and prevalence of newly admitted NH residents with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), and to assess the extent to which market-level wages for certified nursing assistants (CNAs) and state Medicaid behavioral and mental health add-on policy may influence such associations. 4 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.