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 901–925 of 1,328 studies of type cross-sectional study(page 37 of 54)· 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.
Intrinsic capacity (IC) is a recent key concept proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) based on aspects of functional ability (both physical and mental) rather than the presence or absence of diseases, with a potential to predict several health outcomes. 4 key findings →
Cognitive impairment is an important hallmark of dementia, but deterioration of cognition also occurs frequently in non-demented elderly individuals. 4 key findings →
A family history of Alzheimer's disease (AD) increases one's risk of developing late-onset AD (LOAD), and a maternal family history of LOAD influences risk more than a paternal family history. 4 key findings →
A decline in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) correlates with the progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia and has been associated with frontal and parietal hypometabolism, lower cerebrospinal fluid amyloid β 1-42 , and inferior temporal cortical thinning. 4 key findings →
In 2022, the overall prevalence of homebound beneficiaries was 22.0% (8.4% of beneficiaries were homebound, and 13.6% were semihomebound). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurobiology of Aging·2026-07-07
Astrocytic injury and endothelial activation are interconnected processes within the neurovascular system that may contribute to variability in cognitive performance among cognitively unimpaired adults. 3 key findings →
The crude prevalence of dementia significantly increased from 1985 to 2012 (6.7% in 1985, 5.7% in 1992, 7.1% in 1998, 12.5% in 2005, and 17.9% in 2012, p for trend < 0.01), but then decreased significantly from 2012 to 2022 (15.8% in 2017 and 12.1% in 2022; p for trend < 0.01). 5 key findings →
Among 322 participants (48.8% women; mean age 71.4 ± 6.4 years), moderate-to-severe OSA (apnea–hypopnea index [AHI] ≥ 15) was identified in 48.49%, despite the absence of prior diagnoses. 5 key findings →
All groups showed significantly increased brain-PAD, and the median (IQR) brain-PAD was 4.3 (5.4) years in MCI, 6.3 (6.2) years in AD, and 5.0 (6.5) years in DLB. 4 key findings →
After adjusting for potential confounders, multivariable logistic regression models revealed that the prevalence of dementia was significantly higher in individuals with chronic pain than in those without. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·BMC Geriatrics·2025-10-10
During follow-up, cholinergic WMHV was associated with an annual decline of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (β coefficient, -0.239; P = 0.004), and incident dementia (HR = 3.54; 95%CI: 2.05-6.10). 5 key findings →
Seriously ill older adults, including those living with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), often receive disease-focused rehabilitative care in skilled nursing facilities (SNF) with little consideration for their palliative care (PC) needs. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Brain Communications·2025-01-01
Our results pertaining to menopause-related characteristics, such as age at menopause or menopause hormonal therapy, did not replicate the literature reporting an association with WMH volumes. 5 key findings →
The prevalence of low vision in the Medicare population was 994/100,000 and increased significantly with age, Black (1,854/100,000) or Hispanic (2,862/100,000) race/ethnicity, female gender (1,181/100,000), and Medicaid eligibility (2,975/100,000). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2021-09-15
Brain atrophy occurs in aging even in the absence of dementia, but it is unclear to what extent this is due to undetected preclinical Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
This study failed to find associations of circulating NfL and PGRN levels with frailty among community-dwelling older adults in adjusted analyses. 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.