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
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 2,501–2,525 of 10,183 studies scoring 50–69 out of 100 (page 101 of 408)· 31,380 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; 16,851 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.
The key pathological hallmarks-extracellular plaques and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles (NFT)-described by Alois Alzheimer in his seminal 1907 article are still central to the postmortem diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), but major advances in our understanding of the underlying pathophysiology as well as significant progress in clinical diagnosis and therapy have changed the perspective and importance of neuropathologic evaluation of the brain. 4 key findings →
Intronic expansion of the GGGGCC hexanucleotide repeat within the C9ORF72 gene causes frontotemporal dementia and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease in both familial and sporadic cases. 4 key findings →
Sensitive detection of cognitive decline over the course of preclinical Alzheimer's disease is critical as the field moves toward secondary prevention trials. 4 key findings →
The transition of microglia from the normal resting state to the activated state is associated with an increased expression of receptors known as peripheral benzodiazepine binding sites, which are abundant on cells of mononuclear phagocyte lineage. 4 key findings →
While emerging evidence suggests that neuroinflammation plays a crucial role in Alzheimer's disease, the impact of the microglia response in Alzheimer's disease remains a matter of debate. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2017-07-03
Neuroinflammation in the form of microglial activation is present in synucleinopathies and is a potential therapeutic target to halt or delay the neurodegenerative process. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2025-12-08
A total of 364 studies were identified using our search strategy on Ovid, 278 records were screened, and 20 studies were included in this review. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2024-02-28
A total of 1780 major operations (representing 9 556 171 survey-weighted operations nationally) were identified from 1477 community-living participants; mean (SD) age was 79.5 (7.0) years, with 56% being female. 5 key findings →
From 1996 through 2008, 5.55% of hospitalized patients resided in a nursing home 6 months later compared with 0.54% of nonhospitalized control patients. 5 key findings →
Disturbing dreams were reported by 24.2% overall and all-cause dementia, and AD incidence was 10.8 and 5.3 per 1000 person-years, respectively. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-02-26
A total of 2603 men with nonmetastatic PCa (mean [SD] age, 69.6 [7.1] years) were followed up, and 1346 deaths were documented, including 356 (24.6%) from CVD and 197 (14.6%) from PCa. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Nutrients·2025-02-28
Evidence suggests that vegan and vegetarian diets, when well planned, can be rich in phytonutrients and antioxidants, which have been associated with lower levels of inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-02-14
< 0.001] total scores differed significantly between groups, with controls (median MoCA 28.5, 95% CI 28.0-29.0; median MMSE 30, 95% CI 30.0-30.0) outperforming prodromal (median MoCA 26, 95% CI 23.0-27.0; median MMSE 29, 95% CI 27.5-29.5) and symptomatic (median MoCA 20.5, 95% CI 17.0-24.0; median MMSE 26, 95% CI 23.5-29.0) carriers. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2025-08-11
A total of 5 721 711 patients (3 302 579 female and 2 419 132 male) with incident dementia between 2014 and 2021 were included in the study. 5 key findings →
The intervention group showed less discomfort (-1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.88 to -0.23) and fewer sentinel events (-0.40; 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.16), specifically pneumonia (-0.08; 95% CI = -0.14, -0.02). 5 key findings →
Of 736 patients (245 [33%] female, mean age 68·0 years [SD 11·2], median admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 3 [IQR 1-5]), 557 (76%) were followed up until death or the end of the study, and 706 (96%) contributed to the PSD analysis. 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
Randomized / 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
Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%),
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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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.