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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 101–125 of 1,229 studies in Neurology(page 5 of 50)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-07-27
In this prospective cohort study, higher consumption of UPF was associated with higher risk of dementia, whereas substituting unprocessed or minimally processed foods for UPF was associated with lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-09-18
In this nationwide population-based study, SGLT2i use significantly reduced the risks of neurodegenerative disorders in patients with type 2 diabetes independent of various factors including comorbidities and bioclinical parameters. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-10-19
Overall, 2,277 individuals had at least 1 baseline blood biomarker available (n = 357 for CSF subsample, n = 649 for PET subsample), among whom 257 were diagnosed with clinical AD/mixed dementia during follow-up. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-05-15
In DDI (n = 431), participants were classified as CN A-/T- (n = 169), A+/T- (CN = 26, MCI = 24), A+/T+ (CN = 40, MCI = 105), and A-/T+ (CN = 34, MCI = 33), with a mean age of 64.1 years and 55.9% female. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-02-07
Over 10 years of close clinical dementia surveillance in this cohort study, loneliness was associated with increased dementia risk; this tripled in adults whose baseline risk would otherwise be relatively low on the basis of age and genetic risk, representing a majority of the US population. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·2005-05-01
High cholesterol in late life was associated with decreased dementia risk, which is in contrast to previous studies suggesting high cholesterol in mid-life is a risk factor for later dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·2017-10-18
The highly consistent regional hierarchy of PET-evidenced amyloid deposition across participants resembles neuropathologic observations and suggests a predictable regional sequence that may be used to stage an individual's progress of amyloid pathology in vivo. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·1999-09-01
Low-dose risperidone (mean 1.1 mg/d) was well tolerated and associated with reductions in the severity and frequency of behavioral symptoms, particularly aggression, in elderly patients with dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·2010-07-01
Our findings support the hypothesis that depression is a risk factor for dementia and suggest that recurrent depression is particularly pernicious. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-07-06
DNA methylation algorithms are increasingly used to estimate biological aging; however, how these proposed measures of whole-organism biological aging relate to aging in the brain is not known. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-11-04
We tested the hypothesis that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is related to Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia and decline in multiple cognitive systems in old age, independent of AD plaque and tangle pathology and other common age-related neuropathologies. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-01-17
CKD was associated with increased p-tau217 concentrations when measuring p-tau217 by ALZpath and C 2 N methodologies, but the effect was mitigated by the use of %p-tau217. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-02-07
Progression from amnestic mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease in this cohort was best determined by combining four common, easily administered, cognitive measures. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-04-20
The findings of the current study show that the longitudinal, cumulative trajectory of cardiovascular risk is predictive of dementia risk and associated with the emergence of memory decline. 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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.