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 876–900 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 36 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.
Most people's cognitive abilities decline with age, with significant and partly genetically driven, individual differences in rate of change. 3 key findings →
In the Asan cohort, after adjusting for age and sex, p-tau181 (AUC = 0.854) or APOE ε4 status (AUC = 0.769) distinguished Aβ status with high accuracy. 5 key findings →
In the South Korean study to prevent cognitive impairment and protect BRAIN health through lifestyle intervention in at-risk elderly people (SUPERBRAIN), we evaluated the impact of a 24-week facility-based multidomain intervention (FMI) and home-based MI (HMI) on white matter integrity. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Neurology·2021-04-07
At baseline, DSI was significantly associated with increased dementia prevalence compared to normal sensory function (odds ratio [OR] 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-4.02), but SSI was not (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.66-2.41). 4 key findings →
Daily driving is a multi-faceted, real-world, behavioral measure of cognitive functioning requiring multiple cognitive domains working synergistically to complete this instrumental activity of daily living. 1 key finding →
Higher chronic exposure to SO2 was associated with a faster decline in memory score, whereas chronic exposure to CO, NO2 , and PM10 were not associated with the rate of cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
There is clinical overlap between presentations of dementia due to limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy (LATE) and Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
There were 11.8 transitions to a nursing home per 100 person-years among older adults who resided in an assisted living facility with a dementia care program, compared with 20.5 transitions to a nursing home per 100 person-years among older adults who resided in an assisted living facility without a dementia care program. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2024-08-01
Among the cohort of 7180 older adults (median age, 74 years [range, 65-102 years]; 4729 women [65.9%]), 1036 were African American or Black (14.4%), 21 were American Indian or Alaska Native (0.3%), 143 were Asian (2.0%), 332 were Hispanic (4.6%), and 5648 were non-Hispanic White (78.7%); the median educational level was 16.0 years (range, 1.0-29.0 years). 5 key findings →
ϵ4 prevalence in Black (46%) and White participants (46%) was almost double that of Latino participants (24%). ϵ4 was associated with poorer baseline episodic memory only in White participants (p = .001), but had a moderately strong association with episodic memory change across all racial/ethnic groups (Blacks= -.061 SD/year, Latinos = -.055,Whites= -.055). ϵ4 association with semantic memory change was strongest in White participants (-.071), intermediate in Latino participants (-.041), and weakest in Black participants (-.022). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2024-10-01
The sample included 1 626 127 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 80.1 [8.0] years; 922 194 women [56.7%]) who received diagnoses of the 4 conditions in 2016. 5 key findings →
Plasma p-tau217 and cortical FTP-SUVR were correlated (r = 0.61, p < .001), especially in temporo-parietal and dorsolateral frontal cortices. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Nature aging·2023-09-25
The mechanisms by which the apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOEε4) allele influences the pathophysiological progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are poorly understood. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·eLife·2020-10-19
Combining human cohort data (over 24,000 people) with mouse models, this study found that carrying the APOE2 gene variant is linked to a longer lifespan, and that this benefit holds even when accounting for Alzheimer's diagnosis and brain pathology. 4 key findings →
By pooling two long-running community studies from the same region of Pennsylvania, researchers compared dementia rates across people born in different decades, from the 1900s to the 1940s. Each successively younger birth cohort had a substantially lower risk of developing dementia at a given age, with the youngest group's risk about a quarter of the oldest group's. This adds US evidence, independent of Framingham, that generational health improvements are lowering dementia risk. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Brain Communications·2024-02-07
This study tracked tau PET scans over time in over 800 people across the Alzheimer's spectrum and found that while tau broadly follows the classic 'Braak stage' spreading pattern, the exact regions affected vary a lot from person to person, especially as disease progresses. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·BMJ·2018-08-01
This 23-year study found a U-shaped relationship between alcohol and dementia risk: people who abstained from alcohol in midlife, as well as those who drank heavily (more than 14 units, about 14 standard drinks, per week), both had a higher risk of developing dementia than people who drank moderately. 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.