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 2,301–2,325 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 93 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.
Of 3424 articles on potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia, 1719 met our inclusion criteria; 60 were deemed to be of good or fair quality. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Neurology·2004-07-01
Percent total HSI, ventricular, and total CSF volume measures can independently predict the rate of cognitive decline and improve the predictive power of statistical models that use only clinical data. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2006-02-01
Caregivers' reasons for placement included (a) the need for more skilled care (65%); (b) the caregivers' health (49%); (c) the patients' dementia-related behaviors (46%); and (d) the need for more assistance (23%). 4 key findings →
Over the past decade it has become evident that a substantial minority of patients with primary dementing diseases, particularly those presenting in the presenium, have dementia of frontal lobe type (DFT) due to non-Alzheimer's pathology. 1 key finding →
The implementation represented radical innovation and required far more resources than the incremental changes anticipated by the participants. 3 key findings →
In a longitudinal study in which all participants were healthy at the time of their entry into the study, the present authors compared the amount of decline on the subtests of the WISC-R to determine the sequence of cognitive decline associated with varying stages of dementia. 5 key findings →
The 3D GRASE pCASL offers better repeatability than 2D EPI pCASL, thereby may provide a reliable imaging marker for the evaluation of disease progression and treatment effects in MCI and early AD subjects. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Journal of neurology·2020-05-06
The current review summarizes the current knowledge on longitudinal cortical and subcortical grey and white matter MRI findings assessed using T1-weighted and one-tensor diffusion-weighted MRI in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. 2 key findings →
Activation of microglia, the resident immune cells of the central nervous system, is a prominent pathological hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Many genetic studies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been focused on the identification of common genetic variants associated with AD risk and not on other aspects of the disease, such as age at onset or rate of dementia progression. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·JAMA·2026-07-12
The long-term efficacy of amyloid-targeting therapies hinges on their ability to slow downstream neuropathologic change, but little is known about the influence of amyloid clearance on tau pathology and neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2019-07-22
Individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia exhibit significant heterogeneity across clinical symptoms, atrophy patterns, and spatial distribution of Tau deposition. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Stroke·2011-11-23
Most studies investigating the genetics of dementia have focused on Alzheimer disease, but little is known about the genetics of vascular dementia. 4 key findings →
The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), launched in 2004, has worked to accelerate drug development by validating imaging and blood/cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease clinical treatment trials. 4 key findings →
About hundred years ago, Oskar Fischer proposed that the senile plaques are the consequence of the deposition of a foreign substance that could induce an inflammatory response leading to an abnormal neuritic response of the surrounding neurons. 4 key findings →
Since increased BBB permeability is found in tauopathies without Aß pathology, like PSP, we suspected that tau accumulation alone could not only be sufficient, but even more important than Aß for BBB damage. 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.