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 1,026–1,050 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 42 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.
Two longitudinal studies with different populations demonstrated that loneliness was a risk factor for the development of the pain, depression, and fatigue symptom cluster over time. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Neuroepidemiology·2003-01-01
The CHS has developed a methodology for longitudinal studies of dementia in large cohorts and represents the largest study of dementia including cognitive testing, MRI and genetic markers. 1 key finding →
Growing evidence suggests that fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) likely increases the risks of dementia, yet little is known about the relative contributions of different constituents. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Sleep·2016-09-01
Study objectives Sleep duration has been associated with risk of dementia and stroke, but few studies have investigated the relationship between sleep duration and brain MRI measures, particularly in middle age. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·mBio·2019-05-07
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common cause of dementia, has long been associated with bacterial infections and inflammation-causing immunosenescence. 5 key findings →
In persons with multimorbidity, there exists co-occurrence of diseases beyond chance, which clinicians need to take into account in their daily practice. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2009-09-01
These findings add to the growing literature to suggest that the degree of functional impairment at baseline is an important predictor of conversion to dementia and may help explain differences in findings between epidemiological and clinic-based studies. 4 key findings →
These results demonstrate an important role of clusterin in the pathogenesis of AD and suggest that alterations in amyloid chaperone proteins may be a biologically relevant peripheral signature of AD. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2013-05-01
Significantly more patients with MCI than without MCI at baseline (10 of 37 [27.0%] vs 1 of 145 [0.7%]; relative risk, 39.2 [95% CI, 5.2-296.5]; P Conclusions and relevance Mild cognitive impairment at PD diagnosis predicts a highly increased risk for early dementia. 1 key finding →
Low daytime SBP was independently associated with a greater progression of cognitive decline in older patients with dementia and MCI among those treated with AHDs. 5 key findings →
The prevalence of A+T+N+F+ profile was 66.24% in clinically diagnosed AD dementia patients; similarly, the majority of individuals with reduced FDG-PET were AD dementia subjects. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2011-07-28
Recent genetic and proteomic studies demonstrate that clusterin/apolipoprotein-J is associated with risk, pathology, and progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2014-04-01
Identifying a clinical distinction between the invariably lethal prion disease Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) and nonprion rapidly progressive dementias is important and sometimes difficult; thus, reliable tools for diagnosis are in great demand. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2019-12-02
The amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) framework uses cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of total tau (tTau) as a marker of neurodegeneration and CSF levels of phosphorylated tau 181 (pTau181) as a marker of tau tangles. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-10-01
This study aimed to examine whether baseline CSF measures of Alzheimer disease (AD)-related pathology are associated with the time to onset of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and whether these associations differ by age, sex, Apolipoprotein E ( ApoE4 ) status, and proximal (≤7 years) vs distal (>7 years) time to symptom onset. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2025-07-01
The trajectories of core Alzheimer disease (AD) cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers and the concurrent cognitive changes across the clinical spectrum remain unclear yet are important for clinical trial design. 4 key findings →
To assess age-, sex-, and subtype-specific incidence rates of dementia and to calculate the risk of dementia, the authors performed a large, community-based, prospective cohort study on dementia as part of the Rotterdam Study. 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.