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 551–575 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 23 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.
We estimated how all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality in people with diabetes have changed over time, how the composition of the mortality burden has changed, and how this composition compared with that of the non-diabetes population. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2012-02-03
Patients with the repeat expansion had significantly more co-morbid FTD than patients without the repeat (50%vs 12%), and a distinct pattern of non-motor cortex changes on high-resolution 3 T magnetic resonance structural neuroimaging. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2021-07-01
This cohort study found that COVID-19 mortality decreased over time during 2020 and that patient demographic characteristics and comorbidities were associated with higher clinical severity. 5 key findings →
Their results on motor testing from the preceding years were plotted, and then assessed with regression analysis, to determine when markers first deviated from normal values. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2017-07-01
Among 112 study participants with MCI, mean (SD) age was 76.6 (6.9) years, 55 were women (49.1%), and 27 progressed to dementia (24.1%), with an incidence rate of 121 per 1000 person-years. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Nature communications·2015-05-19
Brain iron elevation is implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis, but the impact of iron on disease outcomes has not been previously explored in a longitudinal study. 3 key findings →
This study aimed to determine the extent to which cognitive measures can predict progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's type dementia (AD), assess the predictive accuracy of different cognitive domain categories, and determine whether accuracy varies as a function of age and length of follow-up. 5 key findings →
Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease is associated with progression to dementia (Parkinson's disease dementia) in a majority of patients. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-07-01
Under circumstances emulating routine clinical practice, the positive predictive value of an MCI diagnosis is in line with previous clinical studies and the external validity of the concept is strengthened. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Sleep·2012-09-01
Study objectives To examine the association of sleep complaints reported at baseline (insomnia complaints and excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS)) and medication, with cognitive decline in community-dwelling elderly. 4 key findings →
Although brain neuroinflammation may play an instrumental role in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease, its actual impact on disease progression remains controversial, being reported as either detrimental or protective. 4 key findings →
The efficacy, safety and disease-modification of tramiprosate (homotaurine)were investigated in a recently completed large-scale Phase III clinical study in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD), the Alphase study. 4 key findings →
We created global rating scoring rules for the CDR ® plus NACC FTLD to detect and track early frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and to conduct clinical trials in FTLD. 4 key findings →
Although loneliness and social isolation have been linked to an increased risk of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease and dementia, their association with the risk of severe infection is uncertain. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2010-11-08
Subjects were 404 persons in the Religious Orders Study, a cohort study of aging, who underwent annual clinical evaluations, including 19 neuropsychological tests from which 5 cognitive domain and global summary scores were derived, and brain autopsy at time-of-death (mean age-at-death 86). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-12-09
A total of 716 individuals were included in the analysis: 413 cognitively unimpaired (CU) participants (58.6% female; mean age = 70.6 years, SD = 7.9) and 303 cognitively impaired (CI) participants (54.7% female; mean age = 73.2 years, SD = 7.4). 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.