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 2,201–2,225 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 89 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 55 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2016-04-27
This longitudinal study sought to determine whether the 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO), a marker of neuroinflammation, increases over time in Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2011-03-25
Sporadic tauopathies are characterized by differential cellular and topographical predominance of phospho-tau immunoreactivity and biochemical distinction of the tau protein. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2002-05-01
The development of interventions designed to delay the onset of dementia highlights the need to determine the neuropathologic characteristics of individuals whose cognitive function ranges from intact to demented, including those with mild cognitive impairments. 3 key findings →
The aim of this prospective cohort study was to identify the risk factors involved in falls in 190 elderly residents of two geriatric centres in Granada (Andalusia, Spain). 3 key findings →
In recent years, there has been a strong interest in physical activity as a primary behavioural prevention strategy against cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
Progressive and relatively circumscribed loss of semantic knowledge, referred to as semantic dementia (SD) which falls under the broader umbrella of frontotemporal dementia, was officially identified as a clinical syndrome less than 50 years ago. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·BMJ open·2013-06-20
Compared with non-dementia patients, hospitalised dementia patients have higher rates of potentially preventable complications that might be responsive to nursing interventions. 4 key findings →
HCPs of NH patients with advanced dementia can most commonly expect to encounter medical decisions relating to feeding problems, infections, and pain. 5 key findings →
Cognitive impairment, which is frequently undocumented, may indicate greater risk of readmission for individuals with HF than those without. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2003-06-01
Capacity assessments revealed that most residents could state a simple treatment preference (82.4%), but a sizable number did not retain capacity to understand treatment alternatives or appreciate the consequences of their choice. 1 key finding →
Residents dying with advanced dementia who received SNF care in the last 90 days of life had fewer aggressive treatments and lower odds of hospital death if they also received hospice care at any point during that time. 3 key findings →
Although patient factors remain associated with differential healthcare utilization at the end of life, utilization declined over time and use of palliative care services increased. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1997-11-01
The aims of this study were to examine the relationships of hippocampal T2 (HCT2) relaxation time and magnetic resonance (MR)-based hippocampal volume (HCV) to neuronal (ND) and glial cell densities (GD) of hippocampal neuronal cell layers, and to obtain a better clinicopathological definition of hippocampal sclerosis (HS) and end folium sclerosis (EFS). 5 key findings →
The hippocampus is one of the earliest affected brain regions in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its dysfunction is believed to underlie the core feature of the disease-memory impairment. 1 key finding →
Building on well-established animal data demonstrating the effects of early maternal support on hippocampal development and adaptive coping, a few longitudinal studies suggest that early caregiver support also impacts human hippocampal development. 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.