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 2,451–2,475 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study(page 99 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.
Population-based clinic-pathological studies have established that the most common pathological substrate of dementia in community-dwelling elderly people is mixed, especially Alzheimer's disease (AD) and cerebrovascular ischemic disease (CVID), rather than pure AD. 2 key findings →
In Alzheimer's disease (AD), deposition of insoluble amyloid-β (Aβ) is followed by intracellular aggregation of tau in the neocortex and subsequent neuronal cell loss, synaptic loss, brain atrophy, and cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →
Chronic, low-grade inflammation, or inflammaging, is a crucial contributor to various age-related pathologies and natural processes in aging tissue, including the nervous system. 1 key finding →
Our study confirms and extends findings from other countries, demonstrating cross-sectional associations between moderate and poor self-rated vision and dementia in England in all participants aged 50 and older and longitudinally over an 11-year period in those aged 50 to 69. 3 key findings →
A discussion with theoretical and possible future research directions is provided and it is clear that the need is not only of longitudinal population studies and of better knowledge of epigenetics markers but, especially, of environmental policy interventions based on the green economy. 3 key findings →
Men with prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy had a higher likelihood of developing new comorbidities than men who did not receive androgen deprivation therapy. 3 key findings →
Among nursing home residents with dementia, discontinuing long-term antipsychotic medication use was associated with lower risks of hospitalization, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections, suggesting clinical benefits in this population. 4 key findings →
Increasing oily fish intake has been proposed as a strategy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention, but evidence for long-term benefit remains limited. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-08-03
Among 356 patients (79%) with AD as the primary suspected etiology, assessment of BBM classified 149 patients (42%) as high, 101 patients (28%) as intermediate, and 106 patients (30%) as low probability of AD. 5 key findings →
The results of this study indicate an AD-specific peripheral complement signature associated with disease development, highlighting complement factors as critical immune mediators that link aging and AD. 2 key findings →
An acquisition protocol using time windows of 0-30 and 120-140 min with appropriate interpolation of the missing time points provided the best compromise between patient comfort and quantification accuracy. 5 key findings →
Since the development of amyloid tracers for PET imaging, there has been interest in quantifying amyloid burden in the brains of patients with Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2022-05-26
We evaluated the relationship between baseline CSF p-tau181 and the rate of tau PET change in the temporal meta-ROI and entorhinal cortex (ERC) and how it varied by amyloid level (CSF Aβ42 or amyloid PET) among 143 individuals from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and Mayo Alzheimer Disease Research Center. 3 key findings →
Neuroimaging is valuable in predicting future development of AD in patients with MCI and in carriers of the ApoE epsilon 4 allele who are at a higher risk of developing AD than are cognitively normal elderly individuals. 3 key findings →
Conventional MCI criteria were insufficient to allow for the creation of well-defined and internationally comparable samples of MCI patients. 1 key finding →
Recent findings Anxiety disorders are associated with alterations in fear neurocircuitry such that 'bottom-up' processes in the amygdala which respond to threat are exaggerated, and regulation of these processes by the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and hippocampus is impaired. 2 key findings →
Stepwise decreases in WM integrity as measured by both DTI and FLAIR were independently associated with stepwise increases in WMH risk, emphasizing that these modalities may provide complementary information for understanding the time course of aging-associated WM degeneration. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·1993-12-01
This longitudinal study of 196 caregiver/care receiver dyads was undertaken to determine the variables predictive of caregiver decision to institutionalize a dependent with dementia. 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.