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 276–300 of 1,212 studies published 2019(page 12 of 49)· 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.
Because of the exploratory nature of the analyses and the small sample sizes for subgroup analysis there is the need for caution in interpreting these data. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2019-09-04
China has the largest population of patients with dementia in the world, imposing a heavy burden on the public and health care systems. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Nature·2019-03-20
Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a neurodegenerative tauopathy that is associated with repetitive head impacts or exposure to blast waves. 2 key findings →
We used records of 2 784 138 patients for the calculation of cumulative incidence and of 3 872 451 patients for the calculation of period prevalence and median age at diagnosis of these conditions. 5 key findings →
Symptomatic mutation carriers also demonstrated elevated tau PET binding in the basal ganglia, consistent with prior work with amyloid-β. 2 key findings →
In contrast to no change in global cortical SUVR in the CU- and CU+ groups during the 2-y period, global cortical SUVR increased by 0.06 (2.9%) in the MCI+ group and 0.19 (8.0%) in the DEM+ group at follow-up. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Cell research·2019-09-06
Recently, increasing evidence has suggested the association between gut dysbiosis and Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression, yet the role of gut microbiota in AD pathogenesis remains obscure. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Nature neuroscience·2019-06-24
Variants in the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) have been associated with increased risk for sporadic, late-onset Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Linear MR suggested that each additional hour/day of sleep was associated with 1% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0-2%; P = 0.008] slower reaction time and 3% more errors in visual-memory test (95% CI = 0-6%; P = 0.05). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2019-12-02
Identifying brain regions associated with risk factors for dementia could guide mechanistic understanding of risk factors associated with Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Not indexed·2019-07-24
The program made it feasible to finance a costly treatment for patients that may benefit from it, while maintaining qualitative medical outcomes and sparing treating ophthalmologist from ethical gatekeeping dilemmas 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Cell·2019-09-26
This study reviews recent advances in understanding the complex pathobiology of Alzheimer disease and discusses current treatment strategies. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Nutrients·2019-04-28
In an additional analysis stratifying the sample by weight status, the association between sleep quality and high adherence to the Mediterranean diet was observed only among normal/overweight individuals but not in obese participants. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Palliative medicine·2019-07-01
The late initiation of palliative care (especially when advance care planning is lacking) and palliative care for residents without cancer, dementia or closely involved relatives deserve attention in all countries. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Trials·2019-04-03
Preclinical evidence in transgenic models of Alzheimer's disease suggests that liraglutide exerts neuroprotective effects by reducing amyloid oligomers, normalising synaptic plasticity and cerebral glucose uptake, and increasing the proliferation of neuronal progenitor cells. 4 key findings →
Plasma lipocalin-2 levels were higher in preclinical AD compared with control subjects and associated with cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-beta42 levels but not cerebrospinal fluid tau or phosphorylated-tau181 levels. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·EJNMMI research·2019-03-27
[18F]Flutemetamol and [18F]florbetaben data demonstrated an increased bias in amyloid estimate for larger intervals and higher noise levels. 5 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.