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 3,821 studies published 2025(page 13 of 153)· 27,380 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; 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-02-14
< 0.001] total scores differed significantly between groups, with controls (median MoCA 28.5, 95% CI 28.0-29.0; median MMSE 30, 95% CI 30.0-30.0) outperforming prodromal (median MoCA 26, 95% CI 23.0-27.0; median MMSE 29, 95% CI 27.5-29.5) and symptomatic (median MoCA 20.5, 95% CI 17.0-24.0; median MMSE 26, 95% CI 23.5-29.0) carriers. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2025-08-11
A total of 5 721 711 patients (3 302 579 female and 2 419 132 male) with incident dementia between 2014 and 2021 were included in the study. 5 key findings →
The intervention group showed less discomfort (-1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.88 to -0.23) and fewer sentinel events (-0.40; 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.16), specifically pneumonia (-0.08; 95% CI = -0.14, -0.02). 5 key findings →
Of 736 patients (245 [33%] female, mean age 68·0 years [SD 11·2], median admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 3 [IQR 1-5]), 557 (76%) were followed up until death or the end of the study, and 706 (96%) contributed to the PSD analysis. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-04-10
We evaluated 62 Automated speech analysis demonstrated high accuracy in differentiating FTD subtypes and provided insights into the neural basis of language impairments. 3 key findings →
A total of 14 participants (2 in part A and 12 in parts B and C) completed at least 12 months of follow-up and were included in the analyses. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Nature medicine·2025-09-15
After the clinical implementation of amyloid-β-targeting therapies for people with cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD), there is an urgent need to efficiently identify this patient population in primary care. 4 key findings →
Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh developed a new plasma p-tau217 test (using a different antibody than existing commercial tests) and validated it in 363 people, including some with genetic early-onset Alzheimer's mutations and community-dwelling older adults. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-06-05
This modeling study projects that the financial toll of Alzheimer's and related dementias will grow very unevenly by race and ethnicity in the US. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2025-06-01
Individuals with cannabis use severe enough to require hospital-based care were at increased risk of a new dementia diagnosis compared with those with all-cause hospital-based care or the general population. 5 key findings →
The results provide evidence for the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of extended nursing roles in dementia care, demonstrating that extended nursing roles reduce unmet needs and improve quality of life. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Nature Communications·2025-02-21
Tau neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in the presence of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques are required for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and closely track with cognitive impairment, yet cognitively normal aged individuals frequently exhibit NFTs arising from tau seed accumulation. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Nature genetics·2025-06-18
A polygenic score (PGS) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) was derived recently from data on genome-wide significant loci in European ancestry populations. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Radiology·2025-06-01
Cognitive performance in mild AD improved following tACS, with increased FC within cortical networks and between the hippocampus and specific cortical regions. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·JAMA health forum·2025-08-01
Of 44 844 patients invited to the APT Webstudy, the mean (SD) age was 64.7 (10.1) years, 25 447 (56.8%) were women, 25 044 (55.8%) had Medicaid insurance, 11 347 (25.3%) were Hispanic/Latino, 9526 (21.2%) were non-Hispanic Asian, 6044 (13.5%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 12 109 (27%) were non-Hispanic White. 2 key findings →
Age- and education-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for ADRD increased as neighborhood disadvantage increased, to 1.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.91) in the most disadvantaged quintile compared to the least disadvantaged quintile, with a significant linear trend (p = 0.012). 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.