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 2,126–2,150 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 86 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.
The original mortality risk score predicted 6-month mortality with reasonable accuracy in 2 validation cohorts of nursing home residents with advanced dementia. 2 key findings →
Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is one of the major types of cerebral small vessel disease, and a leading cause of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage and cognitive decline in elderly patients. 5 key findings →
In Fine-Gray models, dementia risk was higher in female than in male participants (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 1·89, 95% CI 1·30-2·76) and Black than Asian participants (sHR 1·75, 1·07-2·88), lower in APOE ε2 carriers than in non-carriers (sHR 0·39, 0·17-0·88), and not significantly higher in APOE ε4 carriers than in non-carriers (sHR 1·51, 0·92-2·47). 3 key findings →
Despite differences in prevalence of APOE-ε4, its association with dementia risk was similar across Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and non-Latino White participants. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-01-02
Latent neuropathologic profiles were identified using hierarchical clustering, and longitudinal cognitive trajectories associated with each profile were estimated using functional mixed-effects models. 4 key findings →
In addition, hippocampal sclerosis was a common neuropathological comorbidity ( n = 5) and associated with limbic-predominant TDP-43 proteinopathy ( n = 4) or FTLD-TDP ( n = 1). 1 key finding →
This study suggests that information obtained from evaluating a subgroup of AD or MCI subject using second-generation TSPO tracers can be translated to the entire AD and MCI population. 5 key findings →
MCI diagnosis frequencies are substantively affected by the stringency of the criteria, but the relative rankings of MCI subtype diagnoses are fairly consistent regardless of the stringency of the criteria. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Brain and behavior·2012-06-26
Hippocampal sclerosis (HS) is a common and often asymmetric neuropathological finding among elderly persons who experience progressive memory loss, but its cause is unknown and it is rarely diagnosed during life. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2007-02-01
Cerebrovascular compromise of the cholinergic pathways may be a factor that contributes more selectively than does total white matter lesion burden to response to cholinergic therapy in Alzheimer disease, particularly on frontal/executive tasks. 3 key findings →
These models have revealed insights into frontotemporal dementia, Huntington's disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and other conditions. 4 key findings →
Digital biomarker prognostic models can be a useful tool to assist large-scale population screening for the early detection of cognitive impairment and patient monitoring over time. 1 key finding →
Adjusted for demographic and health behavior as well as health condition risk factors, desktop and cellphone ownership were independently associated with subsequent decreased cognitive decline over the four-year period. 2 key findings →
This proof-of-concept study demonstrates that automated deep learning-driven processing of audio recordings of neuropsychological testing performed on individuals recruited within a community cohort setting can facilitate dementia screening. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Brain and language·2019-05-07
We examined longitudinal change in language expression during a semi-structured speech sample in 48 patients with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) or behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) and related this to longitudinal neuroimaging of cortical thickness available in 25 of these patients. 2 key findings →
Exposure to ACH medications is independently and specifically associated with a subsequent increase in delirium symptom severity in elderly medical inpatients with diagnosed delirium. 3 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.