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 3,626–3,650 of 3,821 studies published 2025(page 146 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.
Social isolation (SI) and loneliness (perceived social isolation) are considered as risk factors for developing dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), in the elderly population. 5 key findings →
Researchers are focusing on modifiable risk factors for dementia, including sleep disturbances such as insomnia and sleep-disordered breathing (SDB), which are known to increase the risk of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD). 2 key findings →
Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is a neuropsychological clinical condition regarded as a prodromal stage of dementia, characterized by cognitive decline without significant impairment in daily functioning or autonomy. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·Medical Studies·2025-11-19
Wprowadzenie Obniżenie poziomu funkcjonowania poznawczego to częsty problem osób w wieku podeszłym, zwłaszcza kobiet, a jednym z czynników ryzyka jest brak aktywności fizycznej. 5 key findings →
Precision nutrition is a tailored dietary approach that considers an individual’s genetic and metabolic profile, lifestyle factors, and specific nutritional needs to improve health and potentially modify disease progression. 5 key findings →
Here we present the cases of two individuals with language and behavioral symptoms indicative of the early clinical manifestations of both Alzheimer disease (AD) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). 2 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia, characterized by progressive cognitive decline, memory impairment, synaptic dysfunction, and neurodegeneration. 2 key findings →
RELEVANCE . With age, people experience a decline in cognitive and physical functions, which increases the risk of falls, loss of independence, and deterioration in quality of life. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·Medicine Advances·2025-03-01
This narrative review focused on research investigating the impact of loneliness on the prevalence of dementia and its relationship with other risk factors. 2 key findings →
The study highlights the significant role FCPs play in DSD care and the urgent need for interventions that address their educational and emotional needs to improve patient and caregiver well-being. [ Research in Gerontological Nursing, 18 (3), 113–123.] 2 key findings →
Acute ischemic stroke often results in a multitude of neuropsychiatric complications, including depression, dementia, delirium, and fatigue. 3 key findings →
Forty studies were included. Key stakeholders included healthcare professionals (HCPs); family members and caregivers; PWD; dyads (PWD and their caregivers); the broader public; policymakers; and researchers. 5 key findings →
At the end of the last century, it was realized that not only damage to the gray matter of the brain causes cognitive decline, but also damage to the white matter can lead to a decrease in cognitive abilities of high severity, up to dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
Recent studies indicate that having a billed AWV is associated with increases in preventive care services such as vaccinations, cancer screening, and dementia diagnosis. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100.·Revista Foco·2025-03-17
Este trabalho é uma revisão de literatura que explora a relação entre mecanismos epigenéticos e a Doença de Alzheimer (DA), uma doença neurodegenerativa caracterizada por perda de memória e dificuldades cognitivas. 5 key findings →
Apolipoprotein E-4 (APOE-4), serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4), and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of glucocerebrosidase (GBA) are some of the main altered genes in AD, PDD and DLB. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease is a neurological illness that impacts mental and emotional functions functions, has become a global concern due to its increasing prevalence. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100.·Gene Expression·2025-12-18
Full or partial trisomy of human chromosome 21 results in dysregulation of gene expression, leading to the manifestation of specific phenotypes described in individuals with Down syndrome (DS). 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 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.