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 451–475 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 19 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 69 out of 100.·EClinicalMedicine·2022-09-23
Our prediction model was internally evaluated based on five-fold cross-validation on discrimination and calibration, and it was further compared with existing prediction scales. 2 key findings →
If the associations we observed are causal, then air pollution from traffic might be an important risk factor for vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
The potential determinants of cognitive decline identified in this study, in particular modifiable risk factors, should be tested in the context of randomised controlled trials. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2021-10-01
For early detection of Alzheimer's disease, it is important to find biomarkers with predictive value for disease progression and clinical manifestations, such as cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2023-10-01
An increased tau positron emission tomography (PET) signal in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) has been observed in older individuals in the absence of amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Neurology·2021-08-19
In this single-center observational study, we included all individuals who visited the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam and had a clinical diagnosis of subjective cognitive decline (SCD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or probable AD dementia and were A+. 4 key findings →
The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is an ongoing, longitudinal, multicenter study designed to develop clinical, imaging, genetic, and biochemical biomarkers for the early detection and tracking of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·BMC medicine·2024-05-13
Peripheral glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light chain (NfL) are sensitive markers of neuroinflammation and neuronal damage. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2022-11-18
There were 21 603 to 51 236 patients per year (total for 2010-2020, 381 488 patients) in the OAC-eligible incident AF cohort (mean [SD] age, 77.2 [6.1] to 77.4 [6.8] years; 13 871 [51.8%] to 22 901 [49.8%] women). 5 key findings →
Antipsychotic initiation and use were common during hospitalization, most often for delirium, and individuals were frequently discharged on these medications. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Neurology·1999-05-01
In an elderly population of Southern Italy with a typical Mediterranean diet, high MUFA intakes appeared to be protective against age-related cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Higher "vegetables-fruits" and "snacks-drinks-milk products" pattern scores were associated with reduced risk of cognitive impairment in Chinese older women in Hong Kong. 5 key findings →
Future interventions should address subjective fatigue when managing cognitive and functional abilities in community-dwelling older adults. 3 key findings →
In this cohort of French older adults, higher adherence to the French MIND diet was associated with a lower dementia risk and with preserved white matter microstructure. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2016-05-01
The use of APs by patients with dementia in the general population is associated with increased mortality, but whether this risk extends to patients with PD remains unknown. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2020-07-01
The findings of this cohort study suggest that among older Medicare patients undergoing surgical treatment, a diagnosis of a PND was associated with an increase in health care costs for up to 1 year following the surgical procedure. 5 key findings →
Our findings suggest that older patients with reduced preoperative cognitive functions or who develop postoperative delirium are at risk of developing dementia within 5 years after cardiac surgery. 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.