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 1,335 studies published 2020(page 12 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.
This systematic review commissioned by the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), considers how the evidence base for noise effects on health has changed following the recent reviews undertaken for the WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Neurology·2020-10-23
Of 9,033 ARIC participants with sufficient Medicare coverage data (4,980 [55.1%] female, 1993 [22.1%] Black), 671 met the definition of LOE. 2 key findings →
There are specific high-risk preexisting comorbidities for COVID-19 hospitalization and related deaths in community-based older men and women. 3 key findings →
Changes in the properties of DTI may be the potential mechanism of WMH-related MCI, especially the right IFOF and the right ILF, which may become imaging markers for predicting WMH-related cognitive dysfunction. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Neurology·2020-09-28
At baseline, participants (n = 168) were cognitively normal and primarily middle-aged (mean 56.4 years, SD 10.9 years) and had both vascular risk factor status and proximal CSF biomarkers available. 4 key findings →
White matter hyperintensities (WMH) is mainly caused by cerebrovascular injury and may also increase the possibilities of progression to Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
We observed a dose-response association between higher alcohol consumption in 2006 and worse sleep quality in 2012 (Ptrend < 0·001), after adjusting for age, sex, socio-economic status, smoking status, physical activity, obesity, plasma lipid profiles, diabetes and hypertension. 5 key findings →
The mean age was 58.4 years (SD = 6.2). A 20-dB (equivalent to a one-category worsening) increase in HL was associated with a -1.53 (95% CI, -2.11, -0.94) raw score point difference in the DSST, adjusting for demographics, hearing aid use, and cardiovascular disease. 4 key findings →
Recent studies suggested that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) was related to a higher risk of dementia incidence or hospitalizations in western populations, but the evidence is limited in Asian cities. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neurology·2020-09-28
Alzheimer disease pathologic changes are common in DLB and are associated with the clinical phenotype. β-Amyloid is associated with cognitive impairment, and tau pathology is associated with lower frequency of clinical features of DLB. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2020-07-01
The genotype KL-VSHET+ is associated with reduced AD risk and Aβ burden in individuals who are aged 60 to 80 years, cognitively normal, and carrying APOE4. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Medicine·2020-01-01
These estimates suggest that DSS provides clinically important reductions in symptoms of AD and VD and can be a promising anti-dementia drug candidate. 5 key findings →
MI failed to show an effect on metabolism in FDG-based AD biomarker, but exploratory analysis suggested positive effect on limbic system metabolism. 4 key findings →
Overall age-adjusted and sex-adjusted prevalence was estimated to be 6·0% (95% CI 5·8-6·3) for dementia, 3·9% (3·8-4·1) for Alzheimer's disease, 1·6% (1·5-1·7) for vascular dementia, and 0·5% (0·5-0·6) for other dementias. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Radiology·2020-06-30
Iron concentration in the deep gray matter and neocortical regions was higher in patients with Alzheimer disease than in healthy control participants. 3 key findings →
The systematic literature review supported the argument that language and speech could successfully be used to detect dementia automatically. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2020-05-06
Digital RT proved an innovative approach to manage PWD and will thus help PWD achieve a better mood and have more opportunities to engage in social interactions. 3 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.