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 226–250 of 909 studies published 2016(page 10 of 37)· 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.
On the eve of the 2012 summer Olympic Games, the first Lancet Series on physical activity established that physical inactivity was a global pandemic, and global public health action was urgently needed. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Cell·2016-04-21
Microglia maintain homeostasis in the brain, but whether aberrant microglial activation can cause neurodegeneration remains controversial. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neuron·2016-05-01
Haplodeficiency of the microglia gene TREM2 increases risk for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) but the mechanisms remain uncertain. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2016-01-11
Reduction in hippocampal and amygdala volume measured via structural magnetic resonance imaging is an early marker of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2016-07-16
Although mutations within the TREM2 gene have been robustly associated with Alzheimer's disease, it is not known whether alterations in the regulation of this gene are also involved in pathogenesis. 3 key findings →
The pathology-based classification of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases is a work in progress that is important for both clinicians and basic scientists. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Nutrients·2016-09-20
Evidence from a limited number of randomised controlled intervention trials (RCTs) have shown that a Mediterranean dietary pattern may reduce the risk of cognitive decline and enhance cognitive function among healthy older adults. 3 key findings →
In a single center, the ICD-9 code V66.7 had poor sensitivity and high specificity for identifying hospitalized patients who received a palliative care consultation. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a highly complex disease involving a broad range of clinical, cellular, and biochemical manifestations that are currently not understood in combination. 1 key finding →
Hospitalised people with cognitive impairment experience significantly greater length of stay and when discharged to their usual residence are more likely to be readmitted to hospital within 28 days compared with those without cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Early reports of cognitive and behavioural deficits in motor neuron disease might have been overlooked initially, but the concept of a frontotemporal dementia-motor neuron disease continuum has emerged during the past decade. 5 key findings →
This report describes the public health impact of Alzheimer's disease, including incidence and prevalence, mortality rates, costs of care, and the overall impact on caregivers and society. 1 key finding →
Expansions of a hexanucleotide repeat (GGGGCC) in the noncoding region of the C9orf72 gene are the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2016-07-27
A national multicentric study was performed in patients with ADEOAD harboring a pathogenic mutation within PSEN1, PSEN2, APP, or a duplication of APP, and a minimal follow-up of 5 years. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Stroke·2016-04-12
The American Heart Association developed the ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) index as a simple tool to promote CVH; yet, its association with brain atrophy and dementia remains unexamined. 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.