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 26,426–26,450 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 1058 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 32 out of 100.·CoDAS·2023-01-01
Improved performance and increased self-reported daily use of the hearing aid were observed after the period of guidance and telemonitoring via the system for all research participants. 4 key findings →
This study aims to analyze the spatial planning and operational strategies of three profile nursing homes in Copenhagen, Denmark-Hørgården, Peder Lykke Center, and Ørestad Plejecenter-and to derive design and operational implications for the development of Korean unit-based long-term care facilities for older adults. 1 key finding →
Reasons for declining included mis-association with hospice, not seeing additional benefit to current care, and reluctance to change current care. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
Successfully embedding technology into long-term care settings requires intentional, evidence-based community engagement strategies that address the unique needs of providers, caregivers, and persons living with dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Journal of Diabetes·2019-08-21
She presented compelling data that showed the vastly improved ease of use and overall satisfaction of nasal glucagon vs its injectable counterpart. 5 key findings →
Higher densities of civic organizations were associated with lower county dementia incidence, while museums and recreational facilities were associated with lower prevalence and incidence. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Age and Ageing·2013-12-31
fifty-five geriatricians responded. Ninety-one per cent were consultant physicians, and 71% were not involved in outpatient diagnostic services. 5 key findings →
The PORs of AD in rural counties in NTR increased by 18.3%, 4.7%, and 19% compared with urban counties for 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively. 5 key findings →
Thirty thousand three hundred and ninety-eight deaths attributable to dementia as the underlying or related cause (multiple causes) were reported during 2015-2019. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2023-12-01
These findings suggest that caregivers living in rural regions may depend more on informal support for meeting basic care needs of their relative living with dementia. 3 key findings →
As rural areas have lower reported ADRD prevalence compared to urban areas in spite of lower educational attainment (which should lead to higher ADRD prevalence) this argues that the true burden of ADRD is likely underestimated in areas without adequate detection resources. 5 key findings →
Understanding and addressing SDOH associated with hospitalizations among AI/AN older adults, with and without dementia, may aid in the development of strategies that reduce preventable hospitalization. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Pediatrics in Review·2013-07-01
In the history of psychiatry, the words mad and psychosis have often been used interchangeably, negatively contributing to the stigma associated with the term and the illness itself. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·SLEEP Advances·2025-01-01
Idiopathic rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (iRBD) is characterized by the loss of atonia during REM sleep, causing dream-enacting behavior. 4 key findings →
BackgroundNeighborhood disadvantage has been associated with reduced cognitive reserve, increased risk for cognitive impairment, and greater Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuropathology, with particularly pronounced effects among Black and Hispanic/Latino older adults. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
Overall, our findings suggest that greater neighborhood disadvantage may influence select domains of memory, and that one’s self-reported loneliness may influence how this relationship manifests. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
Specifically, higher inflammation was associated with worse processing speed (B = -0.01; p < .05) and working memory (B = 8323.66; p < .1) only among those from more disadvantaged neighborhoods. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-06-09
To determine the relationship between regional brain edema caused by anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody therapy (ARIA-E) and the degree of regional β-amyloid (Aβ) positron emission tomography (PET) signal reduction. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Onkologische Welt·2025-11-27
Neben ihrer Wirkung auf Gewichtskontrolle und kardiometabolische Parameter könnten GLP-1RA auch die endokrine Funktion von Adipozyten sowie die chronische Inflammation bei der Adipositas und damit die Entstehung adipositasassoziierter Tumoren modulieren. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Medicine·2026-02-06
The role of noise pollution as a risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD) is unclear, with observational studies yielding conflicting results susceptible to confounding and reverse causality. 3 key findings →
The onset and sustenance of Alzheimers and Parkinsons is solely dependent on the driving power of the immune cytokine interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), arising from neuronal distress and release of sAPPα, which activates microglia for synthesis and release of IL-1β driving synthesis of βAPP, Aβ plaques and synthesis and activation of MAPKp38 for phosphorylation of tau for neurofibrillary tangle formation in Alzheimers and for a-synuclein for formation of Lewy bodies in Parkinsons. 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.