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 3,101–3,125 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 125 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 64 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-03-01
Hippocampal and entorhinal cortex volumes were each largest in controls, intermediate in MCI nonconverters, and smallest in MCI converters to AD (37 of 139 patients converted to AD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Neurology·2013-04-10
Abnormal levels of all biomarkers were associated with faster time to cognitive impairment, and some participants with abnormal biomarker levels remained cognitively normal for up to 6.6 years. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Diabetes care·2017-09-15
More-severe diabetes (defined by higher HbA 1c and longer disease duration) but not prediabetes or less-severe diabetes was associated with smaller brain volumes and an increased burden of brain vascular pathology. 3 key findings →
Our main findings were: (i) FDG-PET uptake in the bilateral anterior cingulate cortex and anterior temporal pole was associated with baseline global cognition in cognitively stable 80+ (the resilience signature); (ii) established Alzheimer's disease imaging biomarkers did not predict baseline global cognition in this subset of participants; (iii) in the full MCSA 80+ and ADNI cohorts, amyloid burden and FDG-PET in the resilience signature were the stronger predictors of baseline global cognition; (iv) sex and systemic vascular health predicted FDG-PET in the resilience signature, suggesting vascular health maintenance as a potential pathway to preserve the metabolism of these areas; and (v) the resilience signature provided significant information about global longitudinal cognitive change even when considering amyloid status in both the MCSA and ADNI cohorts. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2016-07-25
CSF Aβ42 levels are tightly coupled with cortical amyloid load in the earliest stages of preclinical AD, and begin to decrease dramatically prior to the point when an abnormal threshold of cortical accumulation is detected with amyloid imaging. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2016-10-01
Among the 174 participants (81 men [46.6%]; 93 women [53.4%]; mean [SD] age, 65.7 [8.9] years), a proportion (14%-17%) of individuals with neurodegeneration alone (SNAP) later demonstrated Aβ+. 1 key finding →
Caring for a family member with dementia is generally regarded as a chronically stressful process, with potentially negative physical health consequences. 1 key finding →
Because most interventions have domain-specific outcomes, clinicians must tailor interventions according to the specific needs of the individual caregivers. 3 key findings →
Decreases in depression scores at 13 weeks did not differ between 111 controls and 107 participants allocated to receive sertraline (mean difference 1·17, 95% CI -0·23 to 2·58; p=0·10) or mirtazapine (0·01, -1·37 to 1·38; p=0·99), or between participants in the mirtazapine and sertraline groups (1·16, -0·25 to 2·57; p=0·11); these findings persisted to 39 weeks. 3 key findings →
Two longitudinal studies with different populations demonstrated that loneliness was a risk factor for the development of the pain, depression, and fatigue symptom cluster over time. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·1999-06-01
This 3-year randomized clinical trial tested the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary psychoeducational family group intervention in decreasing the caregivers' perceptions of the frequency and severity of behavioral problems in persons with dementia and their reactions to those problems, and in decreasing caregiver burden and depression. 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 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.