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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 251–275 of 1,335 studies published 2020(page 11 of 54)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 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 Namaste Care Family program is dominant over usual care and, thus, cost-effective, although statistical uncertainty was considerable. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2020-11-01
Interventions had, on average, a significant, small-to-moderate effect on the improvement of ability/knowledge, subjective well-being, burden, depression, and the caregiver's anxiety as well as symptoms of the care recipient. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·PLoS medicine·2020-09-10
At the beginning of June 2020, there were nearly 7 million reported cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide and over 400,000 deaths in people with COVID-19. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Maturitas·2020-09-24
The testing conditions and the accessibility of telemedicine yield inconclusive results as to whether telemedicine can improve the management of dementia in geriatric individuals. 4 key findings →
We used Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regressions to assess whether circadian disturbances predict an increased risk of incident Alzheimer's dementia and conversion of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·The Lancet Neurology·2020-01-17
This text discusses the characterisation of subjective cognitive decline (SCD), a term conceived in 2014 to describe cognitively unimpaired individuals who are concerned about reduced cognitive function and seek medical help. 3 key findings →
Healthy lifestyles are promising targets for prevention of cognitive aging, yet the optimal time windows for interventions remain unclear. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·BMJ open·2020-11-12
Importance and objective Conducting advance care planning (ACP) conversations with people with dementia and their relatives contributes to providing care according to their preferences. 1 key finding →
However, there are barriers to their use associated with sociodemographic factors and negative attitudes, as well as inadequate knowledge about technologies. 5 key findings →
In cognitively unimpaired adults with increased risk for AD, increased exposure to air pollution was suggested to be associated with greater global atrophy and reduced volume and thickness in specific brain areas known to be affected in AD, thus suggesting a potential link between environmental exposures and cerebral vulnerability to AD. 4 key findings →
A cognitive symptom measure identified in discharge notes facilitated stratification of risk for dementia up to 8 years before diagnosis. 3 key findings →
In methodologically heterogeneous studies of uncertain applicability to typical clinical settings, amyloid PET, 18 F-FDG PET, and MRI were highly sensitive for neuropathologic AD. 1 key finding →
Insomnia in cognitively unimpaired adults at increased risk for AD is associated to poorer performance in some executive functions and volume changes in cortical and subcortical gray matter, including key areas involved in Alzheimer's disease, as well as decreased white matter diffusivity. 4 key findings →
These findings have implications for clinical practice and suggest that presence of a caregiver may be an important modifying variable on patient outcomes to examine in future research. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Nature communications·2020-02-03
Each additional copy of the apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) allele is associated with a higher risk of Alzheimer's dementia, while the APOE2 allele is associated with a lower risk of Alzheimer's dementia, it is not yet known whether APOE2 homozygotes have a particularly low risk. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Nature·2020-02-05
Synucleinopathies are neurodegenerative diseases that are associated with the misfolding and aggregation of α-synuclein, including Parkinson's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies and multiple system atrophy 1 . 4 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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.