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 126–150 of 1,328 studies of type cross-sectional study(page 6 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.
This study examined the impact of advance care planning (ACP) on healthcare utilization among older adults with normal cognition and impaired cognition/dementia. 1 key finding →
Successful discharge of beneficiaries with ADRD increased from 43.4% in 2007 to 53.9% in 2015 (average annual percent change (AAPC) = 2.1 (95% CI = 2.0-2.2)); those without ADRD also increased (from 59.1% to 63.6%, AAPC = 0.9 (95% CI = 0.7-1.1)) but not as fast as those with ADRD (P < .01). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Nature aging·2025-06-23
Over 20% of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) worldwide are Chinese, although the efficacy of existing blood-based measures of AD biomarkers is largely unknown in Asian cohorts. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-01-28
This study highlights challenges for the reproducibility of α-syn SAA results across different protocols applied by different laboratories. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2026-04-01
Female individuals had higher plaque burden than male individuals (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% CI, 1.67-2.29; P Conclusions and relevance The findings indicate that female sex, APOEε4, and both race and African ancestry were jointly associated with amyloid in this study population. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2015-05-01
Overall, memory worsened from age 30 years through the 90s. The HVa worsened gradually from age 30 years to the mid-60s and more steeply beyond that age. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2022-06-01
This study suggests that early tau deposition may follow multiple trajectories during preclinical AD and may involve several cortical regions. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2025-09-01
Of 18 293 participants included in the parent study, scan images were available for 10 774 (59%), of which Centiloids were successfully calculated for 10 361 (96%). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2010-05-12
Longitudinal fMRI provides a reliable indicator of brain activation over time, and may prove useful in identifying functional brain changes associated with cognitive decline on the trajectory toward clinical Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-12-07
More research is needed to elucidate the neural mechanisms underlying these regional associations, which may involve motor and sensorimotor circuits hitherto largely neglected in the pathophysiology of AD. 1 key finding →
White matter lesions are frequently found on cerebral MRI scans of elderly people and are thought to be important in the pathogenesis of dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2019-12-10
An individual's brainAGE is the difference between chronological age and age predicted from machine-learning models of brain-imaging data. 2 key findings →
Evidence strongly supports the important role of insulin resistance in cognitive decline and dementia and suggests that insulin sensitizers may protect against cognitive decline in diabetic and pre-diabetic individuals. 5 key findings →
Synaptic dysfunction occurs early in senile dementias, presumably as a result of decreased levels of functional synaptic proteins as found in autopsied brains of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) or frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 3 key findings →
Cross-sectional functional magnetic resonance imaging studies using a memory task in patients with mild cognitive impairment have produced discordant results, with some studies reporting increased hippocampal activity--consistent with findings in genetic at-risk populations--and other studies reporting decreased hippocampal activity, relative to normal controls. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2015-09-01
Patients with AD and individuals at risk for AD show reduced glucose metabolism, as indexed by fludeoxyglucose F 18-labeled positron emission tomography (FDG-PET). 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.