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 1,601–1,625 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 65 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.
This study measured the annual rate of cognitive change in patients with Alzheimer's disease and determined the effects of clinical variables on that rate. 4 key findings →
The weighted prevalence of dementia at provincial level in China in 2018 ranged from 2.62% (95%BCI: 1.70%, 3.91%) to 13.53% (95%BCI: 8.82%, 20.93%). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-05-27
The sample included 740 donors (417 female [56.4%]; mean [SD] age at death, 81.5 [10.3] years; mean [SD] VBI score, 0.7 [1.0]; and median life course ADI, 7.08 [IQR, 4.33-9.83]), with residential years spanning 1905 to 2018. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-01-21
Among 463 ADNI participants with baseline MCI (mean age 72.6 ± 7.3 years, 43.4% female), the OSA PRS, adjusted for BMI, was significantly associated with MCI-to-AD progression. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-08-07
Among 809 participants (mean [SD] age at death, 91.3 [6.1] years; 538 [72%] female; mean [SD] follow-up, 7.2 [4.4] years), HS was present in 82 (10.1%) participants; 71 participants (9%) had both HS and LATE-NC, and in the scored subset, 43 participants (14%) had moderate and 35 participants (12%) had severe hippocampal neuronal loss. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-02-14
Altogether, 187 adolescents (97 boys [51.9%]; mean age, 15.8 [0.4] years) had valid data on self-reported lifestyle behaviors, and 170 adolescents had valid data on device-assessed lifestyle behaviors. 5 key findings →
The highest-risk group (Q4) shows a 2.8-fold increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease, a 6.4-fold risk of multiple sclerosis, and a 2.4-fold higher mortality risk. 5 key findings →
Per 1-m/s increase in ePWV was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 1.51(1.30-1.75) for dementia and 1.58(1.33-1.89) for Alzheimer's disease (AD), and with an MMSE score decline (adjusted β-coefficient = -0.36; 95% CI = -0.52 to -0.21). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Age and Ageing·2025-01-01
Higher cognitive reserve was associated with better cognition, fewer functional difficulties, more physical activity and better quality of life at baseline but was associated with accelerated cognitive decline and greater dependence over time. 4 key findings →
Median follow-up was 7.5 years (interquartile range: 7.0 to 9.0 years), during this time 387 participants (0.8 %) were diagnosed with dementia. 5 key findings →
In multi-adjusted models, higher adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet was associated with higher total mean cortical thickness, and thicker cortex in Alzheimer's disease-signature regions, while a higher adherence to the MeDi was associated with better cognitive performance. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Stroke·2025-03-07
Among 4712 participants (59% female; mean age, 74 years), 193 ischemic strokes and 769 dementia cases were ascertained over a median follow-up of 8.3 years. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2018-03-20
Research of the human brain metabolism in vivo has largely focused on total glucose use (via fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography) and, until recently, did not examine the use of glucose outside oxidative phosphorylation, which is known as aerobic glycolysis (AG). 2 key findings →
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of the selected non-pharmacological lifestyle activities on the delay of cognitive decline in normal aging. 1 key finding →
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.