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 501–525 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 21 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.
Several studies with animal research associate air pollution in Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuropathology, but the actual impact of air pollution on the risk of AD is unknown. 3 key findings →
In this cohort study, higher residential PM2.5 levels, especially from agriculture and wildfires, were associated with higher rates of incident dementia, providing further evidence supporting PM2.5 reduction as a population-based approach to promote healthy cognitive aging. 5 key findings →
We found no evidence that exposure to road traffic noise, either independently or in combination with traffic air pollution, was associated with risk of dementia in our study area. 5 key findings →
In 46 634 participants (51.7% female; mean [SD] age at death, 82.4 [9.0] years), SBPs and DBPs peaked 18 to 14 years before death and then decreased progressively. 2 key findings →
Epidemiological evidence reveals that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased risk of neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), including dementia and Parkinson's disease (PD). 3 key findings →
Our results encourage an independent validation cohort study to confirm the indication that the plasma Aβ 1-40 /Aβ 1-42 ratio, assessed via Simoa, may improve future standard of care and clinical trial design. 2 key findings →
Primary include several amyloid PET measurements (Centiloid, SUVr, BPND , R1 ), and secondary are their changes from baseline, relationship to other amyloid markers (cerebrospinal fluid and visual assessment), and predictive value of AD-related decline. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2024-07-15
The mitochondrial cascade hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been portrayed through molecular, cellular, and animal studies; however large epidemiological studies are lacking. 3 key findings →
In a Chinese cohort of 1,275 people spanning normal cognition to dementia, this study compared three blood markers: p-tau217 rose steadily as amyloid and tau pathology worsened and was very good at both ruling out early disease and flagging advanced tau pathology. 4 key findings →
This observational study analyzed electronic health records of about 1.09 million US patients with type 2 diabetes and found that those prescribed semaglutide (a GLP-1 diabetes/weight-loss drug) were substantially less likely to receive a first-time Alzheimer's diagnosis over 3 years than those on other diabetes medications. 3 key findings →
This long-running Massachusetts study tracked dementia rates over more than 30 years and found that a given person's chance of developing dementia at a given age has been steadily falling since the late 1970s. The decline was seen mainly in people with at least a high school education. 4 key findings →
This large study followed over 274,000 members of a single California health system for 14 years and found striking differences in dementia rates by race and ethnicity. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·BMJ·2005-06-09
Tracking over 10,000 people for 27 years, this landmark study found that being obese in midlife (in your 40s) nearly doubled the risk of developing dementia decades later, and being overweight also raised the risk, independent of whether someone later developed diabetes or heart disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-07-22
In a study of nearly 190,000 older US military veterans, those who had experienced a traumatic brain injury were about 57% more likely to develop dementia over the next 9 years than veterans without a brain injury history. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2026-04-01
These findings add to growing evidence that women have a differential tau response to Aβ that may emerge at the point of p-tau secretion. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-12-03
At baseline, 2,279 dementia-free participants with available blood samples were included (median age 72 (interquartile range, 61-81) years; 62% female). 4 key findings →
In Alzheimer's disease (AD), amyloid-β (Aβ) triggers the aggregation and spreading of tau pathology, which drives neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. 3 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.