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 2,851–2,875 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 115 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.
There are many reports about the comorbidity of NPH and other neurodegenerative diseases1–3; the primary findings in neuropathological studies of patients with NPH include amyloid plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau protein inclusions.2,4 This suggests that proteinopathy may be one of the potential causes of NPH. 5 key findings →
GLP-1RA use was associated with lower risk of dementia (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71–0.91) and Alzheimer’s disease (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59–0.98) compared to DPP4is. 5 key findings →
Epidemiological studies consistently indicate a two- to threefold increased risk of dementia among individuals with schizophrenia, although estimates vary due to diagnostic and ascertainment biases. 5 key findings →
Our study reveals that PS in DLB is associated with specific deficits in attention and visuospatial/executive function, alongside more severe neuropsychiatric symptoms. 5 key findings →
After adjusting for various factors, the incidence of Alzheimer dementia was significantly higher in the anosmia group compared to the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.04-1.28). 4 key findings →
Eighteen members of the public-including patients, carers, and individuals with lived experience of both roles-along with two local board members and one representative from a statutory health and social care body, participated and were actively involved in developing the framework and co-producing outputs through structured small-group discussions. 5 key findings →
End-of-life care in elderly patients with serious advanced illness sits at the intersection of patient autonomy, family involvement, clinical judgment, and resource allocation. 5 key findings →
The glymphatic system, a vital brain perivascular network for waste clearance, hinges on the functionality of the aquaporin 4 (AQP4) water channel. 5 key findings →
The possible mediating role of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the relationship between alcohol use disorders (AUD) and the risk of early-onset (<age 65) and late-onset (≥age 65) dementia lacks formal investigation. 5 key findings →
Compared with non-PVE-corrected data, PVE-corrected data yielded significantly higher changes in regional and composite SUV ratio (SUVR) over time ( P = 0.0002 for composite SUVRs). 4 key findings →
Improving transportation access and diabetes care may be important targets for enhancing mobility and reducing racial disparities in mobility. 1 key finding →
The Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test for Children (RBMT-C) was used to assess a population-based sample of 74 people with Down syndrome (DS) aged 30 years and over (range 30-65 years) living in the Cambridge health district. 2 key findings →
Biomarkers are needed to improve the sensitivity and accuracy of diagnosis, and also prognosis, in individuals with early Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
PLWD proactively enrolled in a dementia care program have high baseline rates of behavioral issues and their caregivers have elevated depression and stress scores. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·JAMA Health Forum·2026-03-27
In a sample of 1218 new HCBS users (75% female, 77% Black; mean [SD] age, 70.5 [7.5] years), Medicaid HCBS initiation was associated with a decrease in probability of ED use (-2.70 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.18 to -1.22 percentage points) and a decrease in probability of inpatient discharge (-2.63 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.75 to -1.51 percentage points). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2022-11-01
An increasing number of older adults reside in assisted living (AL) toward the end of life, and it remains unclear if this trend represents an additional place of care and end-of-life transition before eventual nursing home admission. 1 key finding →
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.