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
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 2,701–2,725 of 17,283 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 109 of 692)· 30,580 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; 16,054 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.
Clinical and neuropathological evaluation of elderly subjects with dementia has traditionally concentrated upon the focal distribution of brain disease, ignoring changes in the complex connections that link brain areas and that are crucial for cognition. 4 key findings →
SUVR at 60-90 min after injection gave robust quantitation of (18)F-GE180, which correlated well with distribution volume ratios calculated from the entire recording and using a white matter reference region. 2 key findings →
ANOVA revealed significant group differences in lateral ventricular SUVR across the Alzheimer, mild cognitive impairment, and healthy control groups ( P = 0.004). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Radiology·2012-09-14
Moreover, cognitive correlations with topological network properties suggest their potential use as markers to assess the risk of Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →
Object The authors describe the first clinical trial with encapsulated cell biodelivery (ECB) implants that deliver nerve growth factor (NGF) to the cholinergic basal forebrain with the intention of halting the degeneration of cholinergic neurons and the associated cognitive decline in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Our data suggest that genetically-modified NSCs could provide a powerful combinatorial approach to not only enhance synaptic plasticity but to also target and modify underlying Alzheimer's disease pathology. 2 key findings →
The paired helical filaments (PHF) formed by the intrinsically disordered human protein tau are one of the pathological hallmarks of Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →
Light-to-moderate alcohol intake is associated with a lower prevalence of vascular brain findings and, in APOE epsilon4 carriers, hippocampal and amygdalar atrophy on MRI. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Radiology·2012-02-27
PRD was associated with selective disruption of corticostriatal resting functional MR imaging correlations, which suggests that resting functional MR imaging analyzed in subject-native space may be a useful biomarker in this disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·PloS one·2014-01-21
Grey matter changes in PDD involve areas associated with Alzheimer-like pathology while fronto-parietal abnormalities are possibly an early marker of PD cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·PloS one·2012-09-11
Multiple lines of evidence suggest that specific subtypes of age-related cataract (ARC) and Alzheimer disease (AD) are related etiologically. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Psychology and aging·1992-12-01
The Revised Memory and Behavior Problems Checklist (RMBPC), a 24-item, caregiver-report measure of observable behavioral problems in dementia patients, provides 1 total score and 3 subscale scores for patient problems (memory-related, depression, and disruptive behaviors) and parallel scores for caregiver reaction. 1 key finding →
The high burden of cognitive impairment in hemodialysis and chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients has only recently become recognized. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2002-10-01
Although many studies have reported small to moderate statistically significant effects on a broad range of outcomes, only a small proportion of these studies achieved clinically meaningful outcomes. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1997-11-01
To determine whether cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) viral burden measurements can assist in the evaluation of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated neurocognitive disorders, we quantified HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA in CSF. 3 key findings →
Estimates suggest that there are more than 10 million adult caregivers of persons with dementia, two-thirds of who experience some form of sleep disturbance during the course of their caregiving career. 3 key findings →
In this study increased carer burden was related independently to increased levels of patient behaviour disturbance and decreased levels of informal social support. 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%),
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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.