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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 3,001–3,025 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 121 of 1086)· 28,180 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; 13,658 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Science·2002-07-19
It has been more than 10 years since it was first proposed that the neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD) may be caused by deposition of amyloid beta-peptide (Abeta) in plaques in brain tissue. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-09-03
Meta-analysis of the 2 family-based and the 5 case-control cohorts yielded a p value of 0.0029, while the overall summary estimate (using case-control data only) resulted in an odds ratio of 1.67 (95% confidence interval 0.95-2.92) for the association between the TREM2 R47H and increased AD risk. 3 key findings →
In patients with Alzheimer's disease pathophysiological changes of the brain that initiate the onset of Alzheimer's disease include accumulation of amyloid-β plaques and phosphorylation of tau-tangles. 1 key finding →
The online SiD decision aid increased preparation for decision making about firearm access in this sample of ADRD caregivers in the United States. 5 key findings →
Music Interventions for Dementia and Depression in Elderly care was a large, multinational, cluster-randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design to examine the effects of group music therapy, recreational choir singing, or both compared with standard care. 2 key findings →
No significant difference between the three groups in ADAS-Cog was found at the primary endpoint at 15 months (CPR vs health advice, β= -0·04 [95% CI -0·34 to 0·26]; RFM vs health advice, β= -0·14 [-0·44 to 0·15]; CPR vs RFM, β=0·10 [-0·19 to 0·40]) nor at the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·BMC Geriatrics·2024-06-01
Nonlinear dose-response relationship between exercise and cognitive improvement in Alzheimer's disease, with the optimal AE dose identified at 660 METs-min/week for enhancing cognitive function in AD. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Neurology·2016-07-01
Biomarkers have become an essential component of Alzheimer disease (AD) research and because of the pervasiveness of AD pathology in the elderly, the same biomarkers are used in cognitive aging research. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2018-08-29
The diagnostic performance of plasma biomarkers was poor (area under the curve [AUC] between 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·62] and 0·74 [0·66-0·82]) except for plasma NfL concentrations, which had an AUC of 0·88 (0·82-0·93) for the differentiation of the asymptomatic group versus the prodromal Alzheimer's disease group and 0·95 (0·92-0·98) for the asymptomatic group versus the Alzheimer's disease dementia group. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Neurology·2020-06-10
Among individuals presenting with SCD at a memory clinic, those with a biomarker profile A-T+N+, A+T-N-, A+T+N-, and A+T+N+ were at increased risk of dementia, and showed steeper cognitive decline compared to A-T-N- individuals. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2021-08-01
Previous studies have suggested that the APOE ɛ4 allele plays a role in the risk and age at onset of dementia in DS; however, data on in vivo biomarkers remain scarce. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2022-08-01
Among 300 participants with DS and a control group of 37 non-DS siblings, mean (SD) age was 45.0 (10.1) years, and 167 (49.6%) were men. 4 key findings →
Among cognitively normal participants with positive biomarkers, 34.4% developed cognitive impairment (Clinical Dementia Rating > 0) as compared to 8.4% of those with negative biomarkers. 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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.