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 3,426–3,450 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 138 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.
A total of 165 cognitively normal participants of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA) Neuroimaging substudy, aged 55-92 years (mean baseline age = 76.4 years, 85 participants were male), received an average of 2.5 PET-PiB scans over an average interval of 2.6 (3.08 SD) years between first and last visits. 5 key findings →
This study examined whether cognitive reserve (CR) alters the relationship between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of cortical thickness and risk of progression from normal cognition to the onset of clinical symptoms associated with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →
In the incident depression group, there was a mild decline in cognitive scores from baseline to the visit before depression onset compared with the never-depressed group. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·GeroScience·2022-05-08
Both objective and perceived social isolations were associated with future cognitive decline and increase risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Aging & mental health·2025-02-02
Across 3544 participants, ≥65 years of age, with no diagnosed dementia-related disorders, the depression symptom everything was an effort showed high expected influence across all time points. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Psychiatry research·2021-04-22
Late-life depression remains an underdiagnosed clinical entity, mainly because the presence of cognitive impairment in the elderly leads clinicians to suspect dementia rather than depression. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Gerontology·2021-04-21
The PSI was higher in Kaohsiung and compared with Pingtung patients, Kaohsiung patients were exposed to higher average annual concentrations of CO, NO2, PM10, and SO2. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease pathology (Aβ plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and cerebral amyloid angiopathy) was significantly higher in the dMCI group than the sMCI group. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2022-02-04
Transactive response DNA-binding protein of ∼43 kDa (TDP-43), a primary pathologic substrate in tau-negative frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), is also often found in the brains of elderly individuals without FTLD and is a key player in the process of neurodegeneration in brains with and without FTLD. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2024-03-23
Neurodegenerative pathologies such as Alzheimer disease neuropathologic change (ADNC), Lewy body disease (LBD), limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy neuropathologic change (LATE-NC), and cerebrovascular disease (CVD) frequently coexist, but little is known about the exact contribution of each pathology to cognitive decline and dementia in subjects with mixed pathologies. 4 key findings →
Two distinct literacy profiles emerged. The first group (N=121, 44%) had higher level of literacy at baseline, slower decline and less variabilities over time. 5 key findings →
This study examined the impact of advance care planning (ACP) on healthcare utilization among older adults with normal cognition and impaired cognition/dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Aging & mental health·2023-09-05
Four studies were included. Two third-order constructs were generated through meta-ethnography: expectations of care and barriers to quality of care. 5 key findings →
Successful discharge of beneficiaries with ADRD increased from 43.4% in 2007 to 53.9% in 2015 (average annual percent change (AAPC) = 2.1 (95% CI = 2.0-2.2)); those without ADRD also increased (from 59.1% to 63.6%, AAPC = 0.9 (95% CI = 0.7-1.1)) but not as fast as those with ADRD (P < .01). 4 key findings →
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is pathologically characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques, neurofibrillary tangles and widespread neuronal loss in the brain. 5 key findings →
By wave, compared with those who remained in the LBC1921 study at Waves 1 to 5, participants who dropped out had: significantly lower older-age IQ scores at Wave 1 Wave 2 = and Wave 3 = lower scores at Waves and at Waves 1 = and 2 = By wave, compared with those who remained in the LBC1936 study at Waves 1 to participants who dropped out had: significantly lower older-age IQ scores at Wave 1 Wave 2 = and Wave 3 = lower scores at Wave 1 = Wave 2 and Wave 3 = lower at Wave 1 = Wave 2 = and Wave 3 and lower physical as at Wave 1 Wave 2 = and Wave 3 = and at Wave 1 = at each wave in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1921 are mean and standard for and for each wave sample = Wave 1 = Waves 1 and 2 = Waves 2 and 3 = Waves IQ from Moray House Test for age in at time of testing and to IQ is the was from to from the in 1 and at Wave 1. as of from the Wave 2 two participants who not Wave 1. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Archives of Neurology·1994-06-01
Of the 204 patients enrolled in the study, re-review after as many as 5 years of follow-up resulted in a final clinical classification of 188 with probable AD. 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 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.