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 1,101–1,125 of 1,247 studies of type systematic review or meta-analysis(page 45 of 50)· 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.
Two randomized controlled trials were included, one was scale A, and the other was scale B. The rates of abnormal liver function, withdrawal from treatment, and withdrawal due to adverse effects were higher in the treatment group (OR = 7.86, 95%CI: 2.50-24.69; OR = 4.70, 95%CI: 2.61-8.44; and OR = 5.47, 95%CI: 3.01-9.94; respectively) compared with the placebo group. 3 key findings →
Though it is not without inherent challenges, fNIRS may have advantages over other neuroimaging techniques in the areas of speech and language impairment. fNIRS has clinical applications that may lead to improved early and differential diagnosis, increase our understanding of response to treatment, improve neuroprosthetic functioning, and advance neurofeedback. 1 key finding →
However, the largest study to date found nortriptyline therapy to be efficacious compared with placebo, whereas paroxetine controlled release was not. 4 key findings →
Lenore Ackerman *Correspondence: David Geffen School of Medicine, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Box 951738, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1738 telephone: 310-794-0206; E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4192-7649 Department of Urology and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003430AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Overactive bladder, including symptoms of increased urinary frequency, urgency, and incontinence, is more prevalent than diabetes, affecting 1 in 6 adults in the United States.1,2 Occurring more commonly among women and older adults, untreated overactive bladder is associated with reduced quality of life, increased incidence of depression and anxiety, increased risk of experiencing falls/fractures, and increased institutionalization. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Frontiers in Dementia·2025-08-18
Limited studies focusing on the intersectional determinants of preferences of ethnic minority groups or post-migrants with dementia were found. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Nutrients·2026-02-19
Most dementias are preceded by mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a transitional clinical stage characterized by cognitive decline that does not yet significantly interfere with activities of daily living. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Frontiers in dementia·2025-01-29
This systematic review aims to elucidate the neuropathological basis of the HIDA and psychosis domains, exploring whether distinct proteinopathies and neural circuit dysfunctions are associated with these symptoms. 4 key findings →
We recently revealed that p.H157Y (rs2234255), a rare coding variant of triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 gene (TREM2), was associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) susceptibility in Han Chinese. 2 key findings →
Recent studies show that Alzheimer's disease (AD) has many common links with conditions associated with insulin resistance, including neuroinflammation, impaired insulin signaling, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and metabolic syndrome. 5 key findings →
This meta-analysis included cross-sectional amyloid PET scans acquired with 5 radiotracers from 49 227 participants across 53 studies from 15 countries (mean age, 71 years; 54% female, 62% cognitively impaired). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Medicine·2025-06-09
This study evaluates the efficacy, safety, and economics of galantamine in the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) patients, and to provide evidence-based reference for optimizing drug selection, dosing strategies, and reimbursement policies in clinical practice. 5 key findings →
The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) signature of reduced amyloid beta 1-42 (Aβ 42 ), elevated total tau (t-tau), and phosphorylated tau181 (p-tau) is important for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
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.