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 26,201–26,225 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 1049 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.
COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns created a global public health crisis generating mental health problems including social isolation, stress, and anxiety especially for persons with dementia and their carers. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100.·Advances in therapy·2021-09-11
The current study aimed to provide data on the effectiveness of the 10 cm2 rivastigmine patch in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a real-world setting in Taiwan. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100.·Small methods·2025-01-06
Spatial transcriptomics (ST) represents a revolutionary approach in molecular biology, providing unprecedented insights into the spatial organization of gene expression within tissues. 2 key findings →
Because the field of bilingualism is still relatively new, studies in the linguistics, psycholinguistics, language development and neurolinguistics of bilingualism have often produced conflicting results. 1 key finding →
The Indo‐US Cross‐National Dementia Epidemiology Study seeks to compare two rural populations, in the US and India: the Monongahela Valley, a rural community of relatively low socioeconomic status in southwestern Pennsylvania (USA), and Ballabgarh, a rural community near New Delhi in North India. 1 key finding →
The very long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) (C18–C22) and n‐3 Omega PUFAs are apparently widely accepted as a part of modern nutrition because of their beneficial effects on metabolism. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100.·Dementia·2009-04-22
In the past twenty years, the importance of the physical and social environments in supporting the person with dementia has gained a much higher profile in dementia care. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100.·Neuropsychology·1994-01-01
The authors summarize developments in the concept of working memory as a multicomponent system, beginning by contrasting this approach with alternative uses of the term working memory. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100.·Aphasiology·2000-01-01
Spontaneous, conversational speech in probable dementia of Alzheimer type (DAT) participants and healthy older controls was analysed using eight linguistic measures. 2 key findings →
The nervous system specific proteins glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAp), S-100 and myelin basic protein (MBP) were determined in 535 human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·1996-03-01
Transgenic mice expressing the oncogenic protein-serine/threonine kinase Mos at high levels in the brain display progressive neuronal degeneration and gliosis. 2 key findings →
We determined that several iterations of the discriminant analysis improved the classification of subjects into the AβL and AβH groups. 2 key findings →
Our work suggests an anti-inflammatory effect of quercetin in the CA1 hippocampal region of aged triple transgenic Alzheimer's disease mice. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·1988-03-01
Studies were undertaken to assess the extent to which messenger RNA prepared from the postmortem Alzheimer's disease (AD) brain can be used for the successful preparation of a recombinant cDNA library. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Stem cell reports·2021-12-16
The apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) variant is the strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), while the APOE2 allele is protective. 1 key finding →
It was first demonstrated that the differentiation and functioning of cultured brain cells requires not only ALA, but also the very long polyunsaturated omega-3 (DHA) and omega-6 carbon chains. 4 key findings →
A pilot study was performed to test the ability of MR to evaluate the brain lucencies shown by CT in Alzheimer disease patients and in normal control subjects. 2 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.