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 1,726–1,750 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 70 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 59 out of 100.·Stroke·2018-11-01
We hypothesize that CRP (C-reactive protein) is associated with brain structural changes and may interact with amyloid to produce vascular and degenerative damage. 4 key findings →
This study aimed to investigate the longitudinal association between decreased lung function and cognitive brain health and to explore underlying biological and brain structural mechanisms. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2022-10-17
To test whether cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) growth-associated protein 43 (GAP-43) concentration is elevated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia and its associations with other hallmarks of AD, we examined the CSF GAP-43 measurements of 787 participants (245 cognitively normal (CN), 415 individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 127 individuals with AD dementia) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study. 4 key findings →
Models of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology posit that amyloidosis [A] precedes and accelerates tau pathology [T] that leads to neurodegeneration [N]. 4 key findings →
After cohort matching, 48% of participants were women (n = 74 464), 61% were white (n = 93 442), and 31% (n = 48 056) were Medicare Advantage insured, with a mean (SD) age of 64 (10) years. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·JAMA Health Forum·2026-08-21
The analytic sample included 1 054 926 beneficiaries, including 219 942 (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [6.3] years; 54.6% female) who developed new complex conditions in 2019 and 834 984 (mean [SD] age, 73.8 [5.6] years; 56.7% female) who did not develop a new complex condition in 2019. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-03-19
Among 2157 older adults without dementia (mean [SD] age 71.2 [9.2] years; 1337 female [62.0%]), 1680 participants had longitudinal cognition data and 569 participants (26.4%) had APOE34/44 genotypes. 5 key findings →
The 2,641 participants had a mean (SD) age of 74 (2.8) years at baseline; 53 % were female, 36 % were of Black race, and had a range of baseline CKM: 3 % Stage 0 (no CKM), 4 % Stage 1 (excess/dysfunctional adiposity), 26 % Stage 2 (metabolic risk factors), 24 % Stage 3 (subclinical CVD and CKD), and 43 % Stage 4 (clinical CVD and CKD). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·JAMA Psychiatry·2026-04-01
In this study's cohort of 155 individuals with SETRS (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [10.3] years; 56 female participants [36.1%]), 153 of 155 (98.7%) scored below the cutoff of 26 for mild cognitive impairment, and 73 of 155 (47.1%) scored below the cutoff of 10 for severe dementia (mean [SD] MoCA score, 9.8 [6.4]). 5 key findings →
Higher structural stiffness of the carotid artery is associated with cognitive decline, whereas both structural and load‐dependent stiffness are associated with brain structural abnormalities common in Alzheimer disease‐related dementias. 5 key findings →
Early onset hallucinations were significantly more common in pLBD than pAD (OR 0.069 [95% CI 0.012-0.397], p = 0.003) or mixed AD+LBD (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.010-0.771], p = 0.028) and there was a greater increase in the odds of hallucinations over time in pAD and AD+LBD than pLBD such that there was was no difference in the prevalence of late-onset hallucinations between pLBD, pAD or AD+LBD. 5 key findings →
In addition to outperforming existing plasma biomarkers, the dSST predicted mid-life dementia risk over a 20-year follow-up across two independent cohorts with different ethnic backgrounds (areas under the curve [AUCs]: dSST 0.68-0.70, dSST+age 0.75-0.81). 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.