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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 2,576–2,600 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 104 of 1086)· 28,180 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; 13,658 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 66 out of 100.·BMC Medicine·2025-12-01
Higher adherence to the MedDiet was associated with greater gut microbial diversity (p < 0.05) and distinct microbial composition (PERMANOVA, p = 0.001). 5 key findings →
End-of-life care in elderly patients with serious advanced illness sits at the intersection of patient autonomy, family involvement, clinical judgment, and resource allocation. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·The Lancet Neurology·2014-05-18
This Position Paper evaluates the strengths and limitations of the International Working Group research diagnostic criteria and proposes advances to improve the diagnostic framework for Alzheimer's disease.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Nature Genetics·2011-04-03
The authors sought to identify new susceptibility loci for Alzheimer's disease through a staged association study and by testing suggestive loci reported by the Alzheimer's Disease Genetic Consortium in a companion paper. 2 key findings →
The maximal tolerated dose of PQ912 has been identified and the results support future studies at still lower doses reaching > 50% target occupancy, a longer up-titration phase to potentially induce adaptation and longer treatment periods to confirm the early signals of efficacy as seen in this study. 4 key findings →
CCT is efficacious on global cognition, select cognitive domains, and psychosocial functioning in people with mild cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →
A healthy lifestyle was associated with a longer life expectancy among men and women, and they lived a larger proportion of their remaining years without Alzheimer's dementia. 2 key findings →
Cognitive training is a popular intervention aimed at attenuating age-related cognitive decline, however, the effects of this intervention on brain structure and function have not been thoroughly explored. 5 key findings →
Successfully assisting older adults to maintain or improve cognitive function, particularly when they are dealing with neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), remains a major challenge. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Neural plasticity·2015-04-07
The present study investigates whether a combined cognitive and physical training may induce changes in the cortical activity as measured via electroencephalogram (EEG) and whether this change may index a deceleration of pathological processes of brain aging. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Brain stimulation·2018-07-18
We concluded that cognitive training along with active tDCS is a useful combined approach in the management of mood and cognitive dysfunctions in PD. 4 key findings →
The results suggest that standard and tailored cognitive training may improve executive function, attention/working memory, and memory in PD. 5 key findings →
Despite some positive findings, the inaccurate definitions of CT, inadequate sample sizes, unclear randomization methods, incomplete datasets at follow-up and multiple testing may have inflated the results in many trials. 2 key findings →
The growing prevalence of neurodegenerative disorders associated with aging and cognitive decline has generated increasing cross-disciplinary interest in non-pharmacological interventions, such as computerized cognitive training (CCT), which may prevent or slow cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Revue neurologique·2019-09-11
Observational epidemiological studies provide valuable information regarding naturally occurring protective factors observed in populations with very low prevalences of vascular disease. 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
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.