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 1,356 studies published 2021(page 11 of 55)· 27,380 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; 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 mechanisms through which tau and amyloid-beta (Aβ) accumulate in the brain of Alzheimer's disease patients may differ but both are related to neuronal networks. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Psychiatry research·2021-04-22
Late-life depression remains an underdiagnosed clinical entity, mainly because the presence of cognitive impairment in the elderly leads clinicians to suspect dementia rather than depression. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Gerontology·2021-04-21
The PSI was higher in Kaohsiung and compared with Pingtung patients, Kaohsiung patients were exposed to higher average annual concentrations of CO, NO2, PM10, and SO2. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease pathology (Aβ plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and cerebral amyloid angiopathy) was significantly higher in the dMCI group than the sMCI group. 3 key findings →
Subjective Cognitive Decline (SCD) in older adults has been identified as a risk factor for dementia, although the literature is inconsistent, and it is unclear which factors moderate progression from SCD to dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2021-06-15
Depression is linked to an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia; therefore, failing to diagnose and treat LLD in later life may have significant health implications. 4 key findings →
Early diagnosis of cognitive disorders in older adults is a major healthcare priority with benefits to patients, families, and health systems. 1 key finding →
Strikingly gene-expression, network-based analysis and cell type deconvolution approaches revealed a consistent immune signature in the brain and blood of female AD patients that was absent in males. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Nature aging·2021-05-14
The plasma proteomic changes that precede the onset of dementia could yield insights into disease biology and highlight new biomarkers and avenues for intervention. 4 key findings →
Levels of CSF Aβ42 decreased in patients with BD who had an episode during follow-up (BD-E) (N = 22) compared to patients without an episode (BD-NE) (N = 25) during follow-up (P = 0.002). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Age and ageing·2021-02-26
among VRFs-free participants, TC (HR 0.62, 95%CI 0.40-0.95) and LDL-C (HR 0.47, 95%CI 0.28-0.80) were inversely associated with incident dementia, LDL-C was inversely associated with incident AD (HR 0.50, 95%CI 0.28-0.90). 2 key findings →
Most participants self-reported good social health (92%) with very few socially isolated (2%), with low social support (2%) or lonely (5%). 5 key findings →
There were interactions between the dietary patterns and APOE ε4 status in relation to incident dementia (interaction p value threshold of < 0.1), while no evidence of interactions were found between the dietary patterns and the AD-PRSs. 4 key findings →
Vascular Dementia (VaD) occurs due to cerebrovascular insufficiency, which leads to decreased blood circulation to the brain, thereby resulting in mental disabilities. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2021-02-01
The data set included 18 178 patients, of which 10 991 (60.5%) had MCI and 7187 (39.5%) had dementia (mean [SD] age, 75.8 [6.3] years; 9333 women [51.3%]). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2021-08-01
Due to trisomy of chromosome 21 and the resultant extra copy of the amyloid precursor protein gene, nearly all adults with Down syndrome develop Alzheimer's disease pathology by the age of 40 years and are at high risk for dementia given their increased life expectancy compared with adults with Down syndrome in the past. 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 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.