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 2,801–2,825 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 113 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.
While educational disparities in dementia incidence are well-known, whether and to what extent they persist beyond dementia onset is less explored. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·PLoS ONE·2025-05-05
The ten top-funded companies offering DDLS received a total funding of EUR 128.52 million, of which three companies collected more than 75%. 4 key findings →
The direct associations identified may present potential intervention targets, while the indirect relationships suggest that other factors are influential in the pathway linking social isolation and loneliness with chronic disease and dementia. 5 key findings →
= 0.005). Cox regression analysis revealed that polypharmacy was significantly associated with a reduced risk of MCI progression to dementia (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 0.78) after adjusting for covariates. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·BMC Medical Imaging·2026-05-11
We identified 8 brain structural features from 192 MRI features that were associated with the risk of MCI progressing to AD, including: left hippocampus, left inferior lateral ventricle, left amygdala, right middle temporal gyrus, left fusiform gyrus, right amygdala, left cortical total volume, and brain parenchyma total volume. 4 key findings →
Neurophysiological activity features and tau pet provided additional information to the clinical model when acquired up to ∼4 years prior to diagnosis, but their accuracy decreased at larger intervals. 5 key findings →
In amyloid PET–positive MCI, Ginkgo biloba use was associated with sustained clinical stability, reduced plasma Aβ oligomerization tendency, and attenuation of amyloid PET progression over 18 months. 2 key findings →
Subgroups with slower versus faster neurodegeneration, despite similar pathological accumulation, were compared to assess associations with genetic/lifestyles. 4 key findings →
Whole-brain bm-CVR values were significantly associated with the diagnosis group of normal, MCI, and early dementia (β = -3.00%/mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-5.42, -0.58]), and were lower in the impaired participants relative to participants with normal cognition (β = -2.18, CI [-3.91, -0.45]). 5 key findings →
High LDL-C (≥160 mg/dL) increased AD risk across all groups {hazard ratio (HR): 1.23 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10-1.38],p<0.001;HR: 1.45 (95% CI: 1.08-1.93),p=0.013;HR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.10-1.42),p<0.001, respectively}, whereas low LDL-C (<70 mg/dL) showed higher VD risk in those not taking cholesterol-lowering medication [HR: 3.02 (95% CI: 1.73-5.27),p<0.001].Low HDL-C (≤40 mg/dL) was associated with increased AD and VD risk in non-users. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Otology & Neurotology·2025-02-24
The control cohort (n = 36.5 million) was 1:1 PSM for age and sex with the HL cohort (n = 1.77 million) in which 0.28% of patients developed delirium compared to 0.74% in the HL cohort (OR 2.66, 95% CI = 2.58-2.75). 5 key findings →
The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) launched in England in 2019 to expand the multidisciplinary primary care workforce, but its impact on workload since implementation is unclear. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Scientific data·2025-07-13
Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) are becoming increasingly prevalent and are predicted to affect up to 153 million globally by 2050. 5 key findings →
Despite the differences in partner's dementia status, we found no significant difference in the 5-year cumulative Medicare expenditures between SPWD and SPWND. 5 key findings →
The progressive decrement of neuropsychological performance is associated with HVL long before the emergence of clinically overt symptoms. 4 key findings →
On November 8-9, 2007, a meeting entitled "Setting a Public Health Research Agenda for Down Syndrome" was held to review current knowledge, identify gaps, and develop priorities for future public health research related to Down syndrome. 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 27,780 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.