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 3,351–3,375 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 135 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.·Drugs·2006-01-01
Memantine (Ebixa, Axura, Namenda, Akatinol) is a moderate-affinity, uncompetitive, voltage-dependent, NMDA-receptor antagonist with fast on/off kinetics that inhibits excessive calcium influx induced by chronic overstimulation of the NMDA receptor. 5 key findings →
Effective interventions in diet, medications, biochemical exposures, psychological condition, pre-existing disease and lifestyle may decrease new incidence of AD. 4 key findings →
Existing drugs for Alzheimer's disease provide symptomatic benefit for up to 12 months, but there are no approved disease-modifying therapies. 1 key finding →
Continued lithium treatment was associated with reduction of the rate of dementia to the same level as that for the general population. 3 key findings →
Social activity is associated with a decreased risk of incident disability in activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living, among community-dwelling older adults. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Brain and cognition·2014-02-08
Recent studies have used non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), to increase dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) activity and, consequently, working memory (WM) performance. 5 key findings →
Between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2016, of 63 038 019 individuals who were aged 65 years or older during the study period, we identified 1·0 million cases of Parkinson's disease and 3·4 million cases of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias based on primary and secondary diagnosis billing codes. 1 key finding →
Strong conclusions remain elusive, although the weight of the evidence suggests an adverse association between PM2.5 and cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Neuroscience·2000-01-01
We reviewed epidemiological and experimental studies of female gonadal hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on cognitive function in post-menopausal women and carried out meta-analyses. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1984-04-01
A case-control study was performed to determine the possible roles of various environmental factors, prior illnesses, drug use, and personal habits in the development of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Psychology and aging·2003-09-01
Meta-analysis was used to examine pooled parameter estimates of 9 active compared with 6 control conditions of the Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer's Caregiver Health (REACH) project at 6 months on caregiver burden and depressive symptoms. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Neurology·2011-07-13
Increased serum proinflammatory cytokines are associated with the presence of symptoms characteristic of sickness behavior, which are common neuropsychiatric features found in AD. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Neuroepidemiology·2019-09-27
Linking detailed HCAP cognitive assessments to the wealth of available longitudinal HRS data on cognition, health, biomarkers, genetics, health care utilization, informal care, and economic resources and behavior will provide unique and expanded opportunities to study cognitive impairment and dementia in a nationally representative US population-based sample. 5 key findings →
This review shows that communication skills training in dementia care significantly improves the quality of life and wellbeing of people with dementia and increases positive interactions in various care settings. 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 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.