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 1,926–1,950 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 78 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 57 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2024-02-14
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) and progranulin (PGRN) are critical regulators of microglia activation and can be detected in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2009-07-14
Tensor-based morphometry (TBM) is a powerful method to map the 3D profile of brain degeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →
The final Dementia Screening Indicator included age (1 point/year; ages, 65-79 years), less than 12 years of education (9 points), stroke (6 points), diabetes mellitus (3 points), body mass index less than 18.5 kg/m(2) (8 points), requiring assistance with money or medications (10 points), and depressive symptoms (6 points). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Stroke·2008-03-06
Men, but not women, with unrecognized myocardial infarction (MI) have an increased risk of cardiac events and stroke compared with those without MI or with recognized MI. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2013-12-19
This study compared individuals whose clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) matched or did not match neuropathologic results at autopsy on clinical and functional outcomes (cognitive impairment, functional status and neuropsychiatric symptoms). 4 key findings →
& objective Evidence is limited on how estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) relate to dementia at different ages. 4 key findings →
Despite using more home health and hospital services than controls in the baseline preenrollment period, which suggests that they were sicker, participants receiving house calls had 17% lower overall Medicare costs than controls, and there was no indication of poorer quality of care, greater mortality, or underservice. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2024-05-31
Among 9239 eligible respondents, 5258 (57.7%) were female and 1210 (9.1%) were Black, 574 (4.7%) were Hispanic, and 7297 (84.4%) were White. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-06-09
The study encompassed 479 723 participants (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [8.1] years; 260 730 females [54.4%]), including 271 690 in the YOD analyses and 334 939 in the LOD analyses. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-01-08
Among the 1665 AIBL participants (741 [44.5%] female) and 2029 ADNI participants (925 [45.6%] female), the mean (SD) age at first evaluation was 71.8 (7.1) years and 74.5 (6.7) years, respectively. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Nature Aging·2025-03-17
Assistance with daily activities is crucial for persons living with dementia and functional limitations, yet many face substantial challenges in accessing adequate care and support. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-02-20
Among 143 331 older adults with dementia (83 536 [58.3%] female; mean [SD] age, 83.8 [7.5] years), 1312 (0.9%) received a feeding tube in hospital and 142 019 (99.1%) did not. 5 key findings →
Bariatric surgery was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of ADRD, evidenced by a subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) of 0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15–0.89; P = 0.03). 4 key findings →
Data from 1,272,495 individuals, with the mean age at diagnosis ranging from 76.8 years (South Korea) to 82.9 years (Germany), show that the overall median length of survival following recorded diagnosis ranges from 2.4 years (New Zealand) to 7.9 years (South Korea). 2 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.