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 1,451–1,475 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 59 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 61 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2011-05-01
The TICS has high diagnostic validity for identification of dementia among ethnically diverse older adults, especially when supported by the DQ and prior visit data. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Age and ageing·2006-01-13
In this large multicentre and long-term population-based study, some well-known risk factors for dementia, of vascular and Alzheimer's type, are confirmed but not others. 3 key findings →
Age, sex, functional limitation, and malnutrition seem to be the strongest predictors of death for patients with Alzheimer's disease in nursing homes. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2015-03-01
Although APOE ε4 carriers are at high risk for cognitive decline, our findings suggest possible intervention targets, including the enhancement of cognitive reserve and improvement of other psychosocial and health factors, to promote cognitive resilience among black and white APOE ε4 carriers. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Neurology·2020-10-23
Of 9,033 ARIC participants with sufficient Medicare coverage data (4,980 [55.1%] female, 1993 [22.1%] Black), 671 met the definition of LOE. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·JAMA surgery·2022-12-14
From 2011 to 2017, of the 1193 major surgeries (from 992 community-living participants), the mean (SD) age was 79.2 (7.1) years; 665 were women (55.7%), and 30 were Hispanic (2.5%), 198 non-Hispanic Black (16.6%), and 915 non-Hispanic White (76.7%). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Age and ageing·2017-11-01
However, in many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) there is a lack of evaluation and the cross-cultural validity of SRH remains largely untested. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2006-05-01
Cognitive function was inversely related to all measures of disease pathology, indicating lower function at more severe levels of pathology. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Neurology·2001-01-01
This study examined the temporal trends in the incidence rates of HIV dementia, cryptococcal meningitis, toxoplasmosis, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, and CNS lymphoma from January 1990 to December 1998 in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2000-01-01
Midlife hypertension is associated with later development of cognitive impairment, vascular dementia (VsD), and possibly Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Our results suggest that search strategies that use automated electronic search strategies to extract Charlson comorbidities from the clinical notes contained within the electronic medical record are feasible and reliable. 3 key findings →
Changes in the properties of DTI may be the potential mechanism of WMH-related MCI, especially the right IFOF and the right ILF, which may become imaging markers for predicting WMH-related cognitive dysfunction. 2 key findings →
We aimed to characterise the brain structure of superagers and identify demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors associated with this phenotype. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Neurology·2021-06-22
Our results demonstrate that different MAPT mutations give rise to distinct atrophy patterns and clinical phenotype, providing insights into the underlying disease biology and potential utility for patient stratification in therapeutic trials. 3 key findings →
Within the training set, individuals closer to or beyond their parent's symptom onset demonstrated reduced grey matter volume and altered functional connectivity, specifically in regions known to be vulnerable in Alzheimer's disease. 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.