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 26,351–26,375 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 1055 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.
Current evidence suggests a potential for the Mediterranean diet to prevent cognitive decline, largely supported by observational studies, although randomized controlled trials show mixed results. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Nursing Philosophy·2025-01-01
The moral authority of advance directives (ADs) in the context of persons living with dementia (PLWD) has sparked a multifaceted debate, encompassing concerns such as authenticity and the appropriate involvement of caregivers. 1 key finding →
This study aimed to investigate the association between delirium and incident dementia in elderly (≥65 years) type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients, addressing the heightened dementia risk in this population. newly diagnosed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2007. 2 key findings →
The prevalence of dysphagia in Aotearoa New Zealand is estimated to have been approximately 1.78% in 2020, with the biggest aetiological contributors being stroke, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·BMJ Open Quality·2025-04-01
Between April 2020 and March 2021, the number of fall-related emergency admissions in England for adults over 65 years was 1933 per 100 000 people. 1 key finding →
Importantly, delirium is not merely a transient cognitive fluctuation; it is independently associated with increased short- and long-term mortality, longer hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and persistent cognitive impairment comparable to mild dementia[4,5]. 5 key findings →
BackgroundWith the growing demand for dementia-friendly care environments, existing smart room designs often lack systematic methods to translate user needs into functional solutions. 5 key findings →
Hexanucleotide repeat expansion in the chromosome 9 open reading frame 72 ( C9orf72 ) gene has been identified as the most common genetic cause of both frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Ageing and Society·2025-09-24
Voluntary assisted dying (VAD) is an end-of-life care option available to eligible Australians living with a terminal condition, though people living with dementia are typically ineligible to choose VAD as part of their end-of-life care. 5 key findings →
A balanced understanding of dementia’s impact (acknowledging both continuity and loss, alternatives and socially constructed aspects) better reflects the realities of dementia and creates new possibilities for supportive care practices to improve pain management and quality of life. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Cureus·2025-08-27
Prion diseases are fatal neurological disorders characterized by the accumulation of abnormal proteins in the central nervous system, leading to rapid neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →
These inputs and activities were shown in the logic model to result in short, medium, and long-term outcomes, including reduced healthcare resource use and increased quality of life for people with dementia at the end of life. 2 key findings →
This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of regular dental scaling by evaluating the association between the frequency of dental scaling and the risk of dementia in individuals with moderate to severe periodontal disease. 2 key findings →
This real-life study aims to describe and compare the characteristics of patients who do or do not receive speech therapy after a memory consultation. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Dementia·2016-05-06
The views of care home staff and relatives had similarities in general terms regarding the problems arising around expressions of sexuality in care homes: indicting that a light-hearted or non-physical connection between residents is deemed acceptable, but the moment it becomes a sexual relationship then decision making becomes more complicated. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Not indexed·2019-03-01
OpenStreetMap provides a valuable crowd-sourced database of raw geospatial data for constructing models of urban street networks for scientific analysis. 1 key finding →
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.