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 3,601–3,625 of 3,821 studies published 2025(page 145 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 30 out of 100.·Acta bioethica·2025-03-28
Dementia is a syndrome characterised by the development of multiple cognitive deficits and behavioural changes that significantly interfere with various aspects of life. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·BJPsych Open·2025-06-01
Number of patients on the unit with an ACP increased between May 2024 and January 2025, from a low of 0% on 03/06/24 to a high of 53% on 12/12/24. 5 key findings →
White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are a common finding on magnetic resonance (MR) images in older individuals, appearing as high-signal intensity regions on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) imaging. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·Medical Care·2025-05-19
MA-PD enrollees had significantly lower utilization of PIMs than standalone PDP enrollees: a 0.7 percentage-point [95% CI: 0.5, 0.8] lower prevalence of potentially harmful drug-disease interactions in older adults with dementia; a 3.1 percentage-point [2.6, 3.5] lower prevalence of potentially harmful drug-disease interactions in older adults with dementia and a history of falls; and a 0.5 percentage-point [0.4, 0.6] lower prevalence of high-risk medications in older adults. 3 key findings →
As states work to maximize limited resources while improving population outcomes, the strategic alignment of planning processes represents a significant opportunity. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
The National Dementia Care Collaborative (NDCC) aims to improve access to and successful implementation of evidence-based comprehensive dementia care. 5 key findings →
A Doença de Alzheimer (DA) é uma das condições neurodegenerativas mais prevalentes do Sistema Nervoso Central (SNC), caracterizada pelo acúmulo anormal de placas beta-amilóide (Aβ) e emaranhados neurofibrilares, levando à degeneração neuronal e ao comprometimento progressivo das funções cognitivas. 5 key findings →
Introducción: La enfermedad de Alzheimer (EA) representa la causa más común de demencia a nivel mundial, caracterizada por un deterioro progresivo de la memoria y otras funciones cognitivas. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·Psychiatrische Praxis·2025-05-01
Dürfen Medikamente mit minimaler Wirkung und im Einzelfall schweren Nebenwirkungen (auf die hier aus Platzgründen nicht weiter eingegangen wird), den PatientInnen, die sich ja auch große Hoffnungen machen, zugemutet werden? 5 key findings →
As of April 3, 2025, 944 HCPs (neurologists 14%, geriatricians 5%, primary care providers 25%) and 2,269 P/Cs engaged with the contents. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·Federal Practitioner·2025-12-01
The VHA is well-positioned to use a hybrid approach-both telehealth and in-person care-to support the provision of amyloid-targeting therapies for veterans with AD. 2 key findings →
As a result of multiple phosphorylation, Tau undergoes early conformational changes involving the bending of the intact amino (N)-terminus over the third repeated domain, which in turn was evidenced by positive immunolabeling with the monoclonal antibody Alz-50 [2]. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) in the form of edema/effusions (ARIA-E) or hemorrhagic lesions (ARIA-H) are the most impactful adverse event associated with anti-amyloid immunotherapy for Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →
Dementia, a progressive neurodegenerative disorder affecting memory, cognition, and behaviour, poses a major global health challenge in aging populations. 5 key findings →
Recent studies highlight the significance of plasma phosphorylated tau proteins, neurofilament light chain, and amyloid-beta ratios as reliable biomarkers. 4 key findings →
Bilgisayar destekli cihaz ve sistemlerin sağlık sektöründe giderek artan kullanımı, hastalıkların daha erken ve daha hızlı teşhis edilmesine olanak sağlamaktadır. Bilgisayar destekli sistem ve cihazlar özellikle nörolojik hastalıkların tanı ve görüntülemesinde kritik bir rol oynamaktadır. Merkezi sinir sistemi ve bilişsel fonksiyonların değerlendirilmesindeki gelişmeler, özellikle Alzheimer Hastalığı gibi nörodejeneratif hastalıkların erken teşhisinde önemli avantajlar sağlamaktadır. Çalışmada kullanılan veriler Kaggle platformunda açık kaynaklı olarak bulunan “Augmented Alzheimer MRI Dataset” isimli veri setinden alınmıştır. Bu veri setinde ikinci klasör kullanılmıştır. Toplamda 33.894 adet görüntü bulunmaktadır. Çalışmada Alzheimer hastalığı teşhisi analizi için derin öğrenme sınıflandırıcı model olarak Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) kullanılmıştır. Performans analizi yapılmıştır. Kullanılan CNN model accuracy değerini 0.9102 olarak vermiştir. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
With increasing dementia prevalence and reliance on spousal care partners, understanding how caregiving identity evolves and how resilience is fostered across the care trajectory is crucial. 5 key findings →
Dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), is a major cause of death among older adults in the United States. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·Research for All·2025-11-13
Despite having an increased risk of developing dementia, individuals from minority ethnic communities are largely overlooked by research and dementia services and are less likely to receive timely diagnosis and appropriate support. 1 key finding →
Individuals aged 70 and above experiencing memory loss in Cochran and Parmer Counties had a statistically significant association with cognitive impairment (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
The global increase in the elderly population, which is expected to reach 2.1 billion by 2050, has highlighted the need for reliable monitoring systems to assist elderly individuals, especially those with dementia. 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 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.