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 2,826–2,850 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 114 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.
This study provided a preliminary examination of indices of obstructive sleep apsnea (OSA) and sleep disruptions in adults with Down syndrome (DS), and their associations with Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology and symptomatology. 3 key findings →
Demonstrated utility of the mCRT warrants further investigation into comparisons between the A and B versions, free versus cued recall and changes in performance over time to better understand sensitivity for tracking memory decline over time based on age and AD clinical status. 5 key findings →
This study aims to assess the evolution of cognitive performances over a 5-year follow-up period in community-dwelling older people with negative plasma p-tau181 levels and to determine whether frailty could discriminate between those who experience cognitive decline and those who do not, in the p-tau negative groups. 4 key findings →
BackgroundAmyloid-negative tau-related neurodegeneration represents a non-Alzheimer biomarker-defined profile; however, its clinical heterogeneity and prognostic relevance remain unclear within Alzheimer's disease-related frameworks. 4 key findings →
The objective of this analysis was to develop a nonlinear disease progression model, using an expanded set of covariates that captures the longitudinal Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. 4 key findings →
The most important predictors of having a diagnosis of ADRD by the start of care OASIS assessment were a prior discharge diagnosis of ADRD among those admitted from an inpatient setting, and frequently exhibiting symptoms of confusion. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-08-26
Among 6158 person-waves with a claims-based dementia diagnosis from 3278 PWPD (3134 [50.9%] aged 65-84 years; 4282 [69.5%] female; 1176 [19.1%] non-Hispanic Black, 617 [10.0%] Hispanic, and 4256 [69.1%] non-Hispanic White), the adjusted proportion not reporting their diagnosis was 42% (95% CI, 40%-43%) among all respondents and 67% (95% CI, 64%-69%) among self-respondents. 5 key findings →
MAs were younger, more likely to be female, less educated, had higher ADI scores, performed worse on trails B (all p < 0.05), and had lower prevalence of APOE4 + when compared to NHWs (p < 0.0001). 5 key findings →
Even after accounting for established individual‐level demographic, socioeconomic, health, and genetic risk factors for cognitive decline, greater neighborhood disadvantage is associated with an accelerated rate of annualized decline in delayed recall performance across mid to late life in a community sample. 5 key findings →
The cluster analysis identified 3 distinct groups: Group 1 was low resource/high distress (n = 215); Group 2 was high resource/low distress (n = 248); and Group 3 was low resource/low distress (n = 353; Figure 1). 5 key findings →
The Centiloid method demonstrates strong intertracer and interscanner harmonization when standardized to the 11C-Pittsburgh compound B reference, with high correlation (r2 > 0.9) across 18F-labeled tracers, including florbetapir, flutemetamol, and florbetaben. 5 key findings →
China accounts for 1/5 of the global population and China faces a particularly heavy dementia burden due to its rapidly ageing population. 4 key findings →
Thirty-two patients met the inclusion criteria (n=11 moderate-to-severe SVD, mean age 72 ± 10 years, 6 women; n = 21 none-to-minimal SVD, mean age 70 ± 10 years, 12 women). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Aging & Mental Health·2025-03-25
= 0.01). We also found that greater use of emotion-focused coping and deriving greater gains in caregiving mitigated the negative association between caregiver financial difficulty and their distress and perception of PwSDs' well-being. 2 key findings →
Novel insights into Alzheimer's disease through the study of individuals with Down syndromePeople with Down syndrome (DS) represent the largest genetically defined population at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 Virtually all adults with DS develop AD neuropathology by midlife due to triplication of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) gene on chromosome 21.As medical advances and social integration have extended life expectancy into the 60s, AD has emerged as the major determinant of cognitive decline, morbidity, and mortality in this DS population. 2 What was once viewed as an inevitable consequence of aging in DS is now recognized as a unique scientific opportunity to uncover the earliest events that drive AD.The predictable and accelerated course of DS-associated AD (DSAD) provides an unparalleled window into the molecular and cellular origins of amyloid and tau pathology, neuroinflammation, cerebrovascular pathology, and neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →
These findings provide no evidence of a group-level Alzheimer-related p-tau217 elevation in young people with DSRD and support DSRD as a condition distinct from Alzheimer’s disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·BMC Oral Health·2025-06-03
Of the participants, 25, 92, and 61 were classified as cognitively normal, with mild cognitive impairment, and with dementia, respectively. 5 key findings →
SSRI treatment showed no significant effect on AD dementia progression (hazard ratio = 1.64, 95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 4.38) or cognitive trajectories, regardless of AD pathology. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Acta Psychologica·2026-01-23
Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is increasingly recognised as a potential preclinical stage of Alzheimer's disease, yet the physiological mechanisms underlying its progression remain poorly understood. 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.