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 2,047 studies published 2026(page 10 of 82)· 27,380 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; 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 56 out of 100.·Nature Aging·2026-05-15
The APOE locus is the strongest genetic factor for Alzheimer's disease, with ε4 increasing and ε2 decreasing risk, yet the basis of these opposing effects remains unclear. 1 key finding →
Characterizing the timing and progression of Alzheimer's disease biomarker onset in Down syndrome (DS) and contrasting potential timing differences with neurotypical adults is needed to identify optimal Alzheimer's disease therapeutic treatment windows in DS. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-05-07
Of 115 participants (mean age 40.0 ± 9.2 years; 43.5% female), higher interdaily stability was associated with higher DSMSE scores B = 20.6 (95% CI 5.0-36.2). 4 key findings →
Approximately half (54.5%, 35/55) of participants showed a decline in RBMT scores during the 2-year follow-up and were defined as the memory decline group. 4 key findings →
SB-C significantly differentiated cognitively unimpaired and impaired groups (P < 0.001), correlated with standard cognitive measures, and showed moderate-to-high area under the curve (0.56-0.82) for classifying biomarker positivity, with strongest results in BioFINDER-Primary Care. 2 key findings →
The reviewed studies demonstrated that wearable sensors, particularly those employing multimodal data and personalized machine learning models, enable reliable detection of agitation symptoms and support timely, tailored interventions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-04-22
= 0.991). Optimal sleep modified both cognitive performance and dementia risk in individuals with focal epilepsy compared with stroke patients and healthy controls. 2 key findings →
Combining aerobic exercise with cognitive training improves clinical outcomes in older adults with MCI and may influence stress-related neurobiological pathways. 5 key findings →
Among the five personality domains, only extraversion was significantly associated with reduced odds of cognitive decline within the intervention group over 24 weeks (fully adjusted model: OR = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.15-0.82). 2 key findings →
In Fine-Gray models, dementia risk was higher in female than in male participants (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 1·89, 95% CI 1·30-2·76) and Black than Asian participants (sHR 1·75, 1·07-2·88), lower in APOE ε2 carriers than in non-carriers (sHR 0·39, 0·17-0·88), and not significantly higher in APOE ε4 carriers than in non-carriers (sHR 1·51, 0·92-2·47). 3 key findings →
Despite differences in prevalence of APOE-ε4, its association with dementia risk was similar across Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and non-Latino White participants. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-01-02
Latent neuropathologic profiles were identified using hierarchical clustering, and longitudinal cognitive trajectories associated with each profile were estimated using functional mixed-effects models. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2026-02-02
With blood-based phosphorylated tau biomarkers soon to be used for diagnosis of Alzheimer disease, analyzing tau levels in other conditions could enhance biomarker interpretability. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-05-14
In 7989 cognitively unimpaired participants (median [range] age, 54 [30-90] years; 4877 [61.3%] female; mean [SD] BMI, 25.9 [4.2]; mean [SD] eGFR, 80.7 [14.7] mL/min/1.73 m2), older age, lower BMI, and reduced kidney function were associated with increased NfL and GFAP concentrations; female sex was associated with increased GFAP concentrations. 5 key findings →
CSF SDC4 levels were elevated in AD, including the earliest preclinical stages, compared to controls and were closely associated with CSF and imaging biomarkers of amyloid and tau, and CSF biomarkers of neuronal and synaptic injury, astrocytic reactivity and microglial dysregulation. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2026-08-10
The study included 560 amyloid-positive participants (BioFINDER: n = 431; mean [SD] age, 73.6 [7.0] years; 212 female [49.2%] and 219 male [51.8%]; TRIAD: n = 129; mean [SD] age, 70.4 [8.3] years; 76 female [58.9%] and 53 male [41.1%]). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-01-27
A total of 503 participants (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [2.8] years; 321 [63.8%] women; 305 [60.6%] Hispanic, 120 [23.9%] non-Hispanic Black, and 78 [15.5%] non-Hispanic White) with Aβ PET, MRI (n = 501), and tau PET (n = 355) data were studied. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology Genetics·2026-07-16
ObjectivesEmerging evidence suggests that the genetic architecture of Alzheimer disease (AD) and Parkinson disease (PD) risk varies across ancestries. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology Open Access·2026-01-30
The study included 1,028 participants (mean age at baseline 76.4 years; 47.6% female): 521 with ADP, 96 with LBP, and 411 with mixed AD-LBP. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·npj Digital Medicine·2026-01-15
The global rise in dementia necessitates scalable cognitive assessments that can evolve to serve both clinical and research applications. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer\\\'s disease (AD), the leading cause of dementia worldwide, affects more than 55 million individuals and gen-erates annual healthcare costs exceeding two trillion USD [14]. 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 27,380 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.