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 26,526–26,550 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 1062 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.·Figshare·2026-02-09
Appendix A. Interview guides on experiences with advance care planning, factors influencing readiness for advance care planning, and the use of conversation aids among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. 2 key findings →
Palliative care should be introduced as a culturally tailored set of services to assist families in ways that align with their values and caregiving practices. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
Antecedents of acute care use and poor prognosis may suggest late utilization of palliative care among PLWD and lack of palliative care needs screening. 1 key finding →
The recent approval of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for early Alzheimer's disease (AD) marks a major shift in clinical practice. 5 key findings →
This multisite initiative demonstrated that structured PPI is feasible in LMICs when supported by cultural adaptation, PPI coordinator roles, and tailored training for contributors and researchers. 1 key finding →
In this update, we discuss the use of real-world data in the Haute Autorité de Santé assessment of economic evaluations, review how real-world evidence is supporting regulatory approvals in multiple myeloma, and consider lessons from the failed EVOKE trials of semaglutide in Alzheimer's disease for the broader application of target trial emulation. 1 key finding →
The 2022 revision of Japanese healthcare reimbursement removed pharmacists from the mandatory dysphagia team, despite emerging evidence of medication-related swallowing complications. 3 key findings →
Dementias are expensive diseases: the net annual cost in European healthcare is about € 28.000 per case with a strong stage dependency, of which medical care accounts for about 19%. 2 key findings →
We sought to identify patterns in occupational therapy (OT) and physical therapy (PT) home health care visits among people living with dementia (PLWD) by (1) level of function care partner report compared with administrative data, (2) race and ethnicity, and (3) level of socioeconomic resources. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Dementia·2016-07-27
Care assistants have a unique insight into the lives of service users and those factors which may impede or enhance the delivery of high quality dementia oriented care. 1 key finding →
Enrollment in an MA plan is associated with a higher probability of AWV uptake, particularly among vulnerable populations from racial and ethnic minorities, dual eligibility, and those diagnosed with ADRD. 4 key findings →
Many National Forest Inventory (NFI) stakeholders would benefit from accurate estimates at finer geographic scales than most currently implemented in operational estimates using NFI sample data. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Urban Science·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 →
Changes in the metabolic activity within the brain of patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease (AD) were investigated and compared with biochemical alterations in the hippocampus induced by fimbria/fornix transection in the rat. 5 key findings →
This study offers evidence of functional and neuroprotective effects of two weeks treatment with a Ptychopetalum olacoides extract against Aβ peptide-induced neurotoxicity in mice. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100.·Proteomics·2015-06-09
Transmissible encephalopathies (TSEs), such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) and scrapie, are caused by infectious agents that provoke strain-specific patterns of disease. 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.