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 26,251–26,275 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 1051 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.
The measurement of CSF specimens from Netherlands Brain Bank showed that the levels of total tau and p-tau in CSF specimens of AD patients were significantly higher than those in CSF of patients with VD and non-dementia neurological disorders, and of age-matched non- 4 key findings →
The increasing aging demographics never seen before is associated with the enormous challenge of dementia epidemics which urgently needs a paradigm shift in the approach to cognitive functions in health and disease. 4 key findings →
Høilund-Carlsen and colleagues raise important issues related to amyloid PET, diagnosis of Alzheimer disease, and recently approved antiamyloid treatment aducanumab. 1 key finding →
This review will describe the evidence for changing the hospital environment to improve nutrition of older people, with particular emphasis on the role of additional mealtime assistance. 2 key findings →
The Canadian population is aging. In Newfoundland and Labrador, nursing homes and supervised care facilities provide Long-Term Care (LTC). 1 key finding →
An accessible and navigable neighbourhood physical environment is a critical part of dementia-friendly and inclusive communities (DFCs). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2020-12-01
A third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA); however, little is known about MA beneficiaries diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (AD/ADRD). 1 key finding →
Financial incentives to detect dementia resulted in more dementia diagnoses, particularly among persons at high risk of dementia and of undetected dementia but also raises concerns about diagnostic upcoding and the potential for over‐diagnosis. 3 key findings →
We find that even for a matched sample of TM and MA patients with the same PCP, dementiadiagnosis rates are lower in MA relative to TM. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Medical Care·2025-05-19
MA-PD enrollees had significantly lower utilization of PIMs than standalone PDP enrollees: a 0.7 percentage-point [95% CI: 0.5, 0.8] lower prevalence of potentially harmful drug-disease interactions in older adults with dementia; a 3.1 percentage-point [2.6, 3.5] lower prevalence of potentially harmful drug-disease interactions in older adults with dementia and a history of falls; and a 0.5 percentage-point [0.4, 0.6] lower prevalence of high-risk medications in older adults. 3 key findings →
Using a fit‐for‐purpose validated algorithm, the 2019 annual prevalence and incidence of ADRD in the Medicare population aged 65+ with Part D enrollment was estimated to be 18% and 5.8% respectively. 1 key finding →
Multi-infarct dementia (MID), thought to result from the cumulative effect of repeated episodes of cerebral infarction, represents a sizable proportion of the dementia cases in the population. 2 key findings →
Given that Black Americans have been found to have a higher prevalence of sleep disturbances compared to white Americans, our findings could add to inform future health interventions and policy recommendations that can address modifiable sources of poorer brain health in Black men. 5 key findings →
Adherence to ADRD medications was not associated with specialist availability but was related to individual and socioeconomic context factors in community‐dwelling older individuals with ADRD. 5 key findings →
Among 15,346 White, 829 Latino, 637 Black/African American, and 321 Asian individuals, 51% were female, mean age was 75.7 years, 535 (3.8%) resided in ADI 91 to 100 decile, and 61.6% were amyloid PET positive. 3 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.