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 351–375 of 1,178 studies published 2024(page 15 of 48)· 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.
In the low-education group, low literacy, long sleep duration(>8 h/day), and diabetes were negatively associated with CR, whereas cognitive and physical activity were positively associated with CR. 5 key findings →
There is substantial evidence supporting the neuroprotective effects of the MIND diet in neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a nutritional intervention (NI) with this diet on multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. 1 key finding →
There were 2427 new residents of assisted living who were matched to 9708 home care recipients [mean (SD) age 85.5 (6.02) years, 72% female]. 5 key findings →
Disease staging, whereby the spatial extent and load of brain pathology are used to estimate the severity of Alzheimer disease (AD), is pivotal to the gold-standard neuropathological diagnosis of AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-09-27
Our results reveal a spatial association between the epileptogenic focus and tau deposition, amyloid deposition, and neurodegeneration in early clinical stages of AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-08-29
We tested the CSF of 40 patients with CBS (19 female patients, 65.9 ± 8.6 years) and 28 with PSP (13 female patients, 72.5 ± 8.7 years old), mostly White (n = 50) or Asian (n = 14). αSyn-SAA positivity was observed in 35.9% patients with CBS and 28.6% with PSP. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-03-12
Midlife NAFLD shows associations with AD and accumulating vascular pathology, revealing potential pathways linking liver function to dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants age 60-85 years deemed cognitively unimpaired were disclosed an elevated or not elevated brain amyloid result by a certified clinician. 5 key findings →
Study findings will reveal the feasibility of delivering an 8-week multidomain health education intervention for primary prevention of dementia in midlife and will provide preliminary evidence of mechanisms of change. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Brain sciences·2024-12-16
The results indicate that incorporating MI can positively influence cognitive status, emotional status, and the quality of life in older adults diagnosed with early-stage dementia. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) presents a significant challenge in neurodegenerative research and clinical practice due to its complex etiology and progressive nature. 1 key finding →
The accessibility of the retina with the use of non-invasive and relatively low-cost ophthalmic imaging techniques and analytics provides a unique opportunity to improve the detection, diagnosis and monitoring of systemic diseases. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-09-13
It remains unknown whether the associations between protective lifestyles and sporadic dementia risk reported in observational studies also affect age at symptom onset (AAO) in autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) with predominant genetic influences. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-08-09
The patient was participating in an extended open-label trial of aducanumab when she was admitted to hospital for focal seizures and ARIA in 2 noncontiguous regions of the left frontal and occipital lobes. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology is defined by β-amyloid (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary tau, but Lewy bodies (LBs; 𝛼-synuclein aggregates) are a common co-pathology for which effective biomarkers are needed. 4 key findings →
This meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction in sRAGE in neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric disorders particularly in Asians and moderate age. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-07-29
Individuals with DS were more likely to have microbleeds than controls (20% vs 8.9%, p 60 years) and AD clinical stage (12.42% asymptomatic, 27.9% prodromal, 35.09% dementia) were more common in APOE ε4 carriers (26% vs 18.3% noncarriers, p = 0.008), but not associated with vascular risk factors ( p > 0.05). 4 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.