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 301–325 of 1,102 studies published 2018(page 13 of 45)· 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.
Our findings suggest a potential protective role of green spaces on mental health (depression and anxiety) in adults, but further studies, especially longitudinal studies, are needed to provide further evidence of these benefits and of the mediation role of exposures like air pollution and noise. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2018-11-01
Furthermore, PET studies have revealed that Aβ accumulates in the healthy brain after a single night of sleep deprivation, suggesting that the human glymphatic pathway might also be primarily active during sleep. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·PloS one·2018-06-13
If the associations we observed are causal, then air pollution from residential wood burning, and air pollution from traffic, might be independent important risk factors for dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2018-03-16
In addition to an overview of the results, we briefly outline the methods applied to the concept of resting-state functional connectivity. 4 key findings →
18F-MK-6240 (18F-labeled 6-(fluoro)-3-(1H-pyrrolo[2,3-c]pyridin-1-yl)isoquinolin-5-amine) is a highly selective, subnanomolar-affinity PET tracer for imaging neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2018-02-27
The amyloid β subgroups did not differ for any psychobehavioural, cognitive, actigraphy, and structural and functional neuroimaging results after adjustment for age, sex, and level of education More participants positive for amyloid β deposition had the APOE ε4 allele (33 [38%] vs 29 [13%], p 1-42 concentration in CSF significantly correlated with mean 18 F-florbetapir uptake at baseline (r=-0·62, p 1-42 to amyloid β 1-40 (r=-0·61, p 18 F-florbetapir uptake at baseline (mean standard uptake value ratio 1·46 [SD 0·16] vs 1·02 [SD 0·20]), and more were carriers of the APOE ε4 allele (three [75%] of four vs 33 [39%] of 83). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·JMIR aging·2018-04-23
Recent evidence suggests that Web-based interventions have the potential to support caregivers by decreasing caregiver stress and burden. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·F1000Research·2018-07-31
Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia worldwide, with the prevalence continuing to grow in part because of the aging world population. 1 key finding →
The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is a continuous endothelial membrane within brain microvessels that has sealed cell-to-cell contacts and is sheathed by mural vascular cells and perivascular astrocyte end-feet. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2018-01-10
CSF tau and 18 F-AV-1451 have equal performance in early clinical stages of AD, but 18 F-AV-1451 is superior in the dementia stage, and exhibits close to perfect diagnostic performance for mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2018-02-01
These findings suggest that patterns of cortical Aβ and tau do not differ in people with PD-CN, people with PD-MCI, and healthy older adults. 5 key findings →
Frontotemporal lobar degeneration causes a spectrum of complex degenerative disorders including frontotemporal dementia, progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal syndrome, each of which is associated with changes in the principal neurotransmitter systems. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2018-06-26
Age-related increases in dementia risk can be attributed to accumulation of multiple pathologies, each of which contributes to dementia risk. 1 key finding →
Older patients on hemodialysis are at substantial risk of diagnosis with dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and carrying these diagnoses is associated with a twofold higher mortality. 4 key findings →
This analysis combining data from two health systems shows that area deprivation is an independent risk factor for cognitive dysfunction in older adults. 3 key findings →
Based on the systematic review, evidence suggests that treating hearing loss in persons with cognitive impairment can have benefits to communication and quality of life. 4 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.