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 2,776–2,800 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 112 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·BMC neurology·2019-10-31
Amyloid imaging with PET and measuring cortical thickness with MRI are suitable biomarkers to detect disease progression in early AD within a small sample. 3 key findings →
A subset of a dementia subgroup with characteristics predominantly associated with DM-related factors may underlie a pathophysiology different from AD, although these patients were clinically diagnosed as having AD. 4 key findings →
Pseudotemporal measurements from baseline PET data explained 87% ( P Pseudotemporal analysis of baseline PET images is capable of predicting the regional pattern of longitudinal Aβ accumulation in AD at a group level. 3 key findings →
Development of molecular imaging agents for fibrillar β-amyloid positron-emission tomography during the past decade has brought molecular imaging of Alzheimer disease pathology into the spotlight. 1 key finding →
We describe the history, development, and success of the recruitment and screening procedures used by researchers at the University of California, Davis Alzheimer's Disease Center (UCD ADC) to facilitate minority enrollment in research. 5 key findings →
Changes in delta bandpower showed the highest and most consistent pattern of correlations with longitudinal changes in neuropsychological testing. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Sleep·2025-07-23
This study provided a preliminary examination of indices of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and sleep disruptions in adults with Down syndrome (DS), and their associations with Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology and symptomatology. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Radiology·2020-05-05
Growing evidence indicates an association between cerebral microhemorrhages (MHs) and amyloid β accumulation in Alzheimer disease (AD), but to the knowledge of the authors the association with tau burden is unknown. 4 key findings →
Our findings suggest that non-economic social deprivation, especially in terms of access to a grocery store, pharmacy, postal office, and bus stop, might be relevant for maintaining cognitive functioning in old age. 4 key findings →
TBI had the highest percentage (37%) compared to other conditions, which may be attributed to the prevalent challenge of cognitive impairment in TBI in addition to physical disability. 5 key findings →
Of the 508 eligible MA enrollees, mean age was 82.8 (SD = 7.2) years, 81% were female, and 49% were non-Latino White; 62 participants (12%) were classified as having dementia by the cohort assessment. 5 key findings →
To ensure diversity, we developed a comprehensive recruitment strategy using a diverse, culturally‐trained staff that includes : • Identifying Dementia Specialists experienced recruiting minorities • Embedding high‐impact community engagement in select regions • Increasing capacity of specialists and PET facilities to engage minorities • Increasing pipeline of referrals to Dementia Specialists • Creating a culturally‐informed awareness campaign Result New IDEAS has enrolled 4,524 participants including 954 (21.1%) Black/African American, and 842 (18.6%) Hispanic/Latinx. 3 key findings →
Hysterectomy is often recommended for gynaecological symptomatology because menstruation inevitably ceases, and the mortality rate associated with this operation is low3. 5 key findings →
The study included 807 participants form K-ROAD (median age: 72.0 years, 58.7% female) and 230 from ADNI (median age: 70.9 years, 49.1% female). 5 key findings →
Our findings demonstrate the capability of a fingerstick collection to accurately quantify p ‐tau217 levels longitudinally and genotype ApoE. 5 key findings →
The 12 risk factors account for 60.3% of dementia cases in China, including 14.0% in early life, 8.8% in midlife, and 37.5% in later life. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Journal of Neurology·2025-03-21
Linear mixed modelling of time effects found progression of all CBI-R domains, aside from sleep, beliefs and mood domains, and all ACE-III domains. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease staging from structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is challenging when clinically adjacent stages and severe class imbalance are considered simultaneously. 2 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.