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 176–200 of 1,247 studies of type systematic review or meta-analysis(page 8 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.
These findings suggested high prevalence and detrimental impact of DSD in hospitalized older adults, highlighting a need for early identification, prevention, and treatments. 3 key findings →
In this study, NPTs have excellent potential to improve cognition in people with dementia, and PBM may have more significant benefits in improving cognition than the other four NPTs. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100.·Neurology·2013-04-01
Based on this meta-analytic survey of the literature, increased amyloid burden has small but nontrivial associations with specific domains of cognitive performance in individuals who are currently cognitively normal. 3 key findings →
Brain networks or 'connectomes' include a minority of highly connected hub nodes that are functionally valuable, because their topological centrality supports integrative processing and adaptive behaviours. 5 key findings →
This analysis indicated that patients with type 2 diabetes under treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors presented with the lowest risk of dementia, followed by those treated with metformin and thiazolidinedione, while treatment with insulin was associated with the highest risk. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2007-09-01
Three donepezil, two galantamine, one rivastigmine, and two memantine trials, comprising 3093 patients on the study drugs and 2090 patients on placebo, met the selection criteria. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100.·Sleep·2017-01-01
Study objectives Mounting evidence implicates disturbed sleep or lack of sleep as one of the risk factors for Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the extent of the risk is uncertain. 4 key findings →
Fewer than half of the older adults dispensed donepezil in Ontario would have been eligible to participate in the RCTs that established the efficacy of this drug. 4 key findings →
Both t-tau and p-tau are suitable AD blood biomarkers, and p-tau217 is more sensitive than other tau biomarkers to differentiate MCI and AD. 3 key findings →
This meta-analysis pooled 30 studies (nearly 9,800 people from 10 countries) to see how well p-tau217 measured in blood or spinal fluid detects Alzheimer's amyloid and tau pathology compared with PET scans. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.·Nature Genetics·2022-04
This was, at the time, the largest genetic study of Alzheimer's disease ever done, comparing DNA from over 111,000 people with the disease (or a strong family history) to nearly 680,000 people without it. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.·JAMA·2020-02-01
One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (n = 4005) examined the direct effect of screening for cognitive impairment on patient outcomes, including potential harms, finding no significant differences in health-related quality of life at 12 months (effect size, 0.009 [95% CI, -0.063 to 0.080]). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.·PLoS medicine·2019-07-23
With no effective treatments for cognitive decline or dementia, improving the evidence base for modifiable risk factors is a research priority. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2021-09-01
A total of 95 unique studies were included in this systematic review, of which 74 with 2 760 379 unique patients were also included in 5-year age band meta-analyses. 5 key findings →
Decades of research have revealed numerous risk factors for mental disorders beyond genetics, but their consistency and magnitude remain uncer-tain. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.·Genome biology·2025-07-17
Using cross-population GWAS meta-analyses, we identify novel LOAD susceptibility loci in/near LRRC4C and LHX5-AS1, both with known roles in neuronal development, as well as several novel population-unique loci. 1 key finding →
A total of 17 articles were identified. Plasma Aβ42/40 ratio was inversely correlated with aPET positivity r = -0.48 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.65--0.31). 5 key findings →
Thinning of retinal layers, measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT), is associated with some neurodegenerative disorders such as established Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis. 5 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.