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
28,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 3,826–3,850 of 16,067 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 154 of 643)· 28,980 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; 14,457 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 45 out of 100.·Maturitas·2020-07-15
Globally, 985 million women are aged 50 and over, leading to increasing concerns about chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, dementia, and cognitive decline, which can adversely affect quality of life and independent living. 5 key findings →
Numerous epidemiological studies have strongly suggested that multinutrient approaches using the Mediterranean diet (Med diet), dietary approach to systolic hypertension (DASH) and the Mediterranean-DASH diet intervention for neurodegenerative delay (MIND) are associated with a lower risk of cognitive impairment, MCI and Alzheimer's disease in older persons. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·BMC psychiatry·2016-09-08
The associations of an active lifestyle with cognitive change over time in a dementia risk group were stronger than the effects of short-term, specific training interventions. 5 key findings →
Current evidence indicates that spaced-retrieval training is effective in enabling people with dementia to learn new information and behavioral strategies. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Metabolites·2024-06-11
Several hallmarks of metabolic syndrome, such as dysregulation in the glucose and lipid metabolism, endothelial dysfunction, insulin resistance, low-to-medium systemic inflammation, and intestinal microbiota dysbiosis, represent a pathological bridge between metabolic syndrome and diabesity, cardiovascular, and neurodegenerative disorders. 2 key findings →
We report the case of a 73-year-old male patient with Alzheimer's disease who underwent 10-daily transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) sessions. tDCS was applied over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex as an adjuvant to the traditional treatment that the patient was receiving, which consisted of anticholinergic medication and cognitive training. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Frontiers in medicine·2024-09-27
Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common and serious postoperative complication in elderly patients, affecting cognitive function and quality of life. 2 key findings →
Delirium is an independent marker for increased mortality among older medical inpatients during the 12 months after hospital admission. 3 key findings →
Using a structured instrument, 325 elderly patients admitted to a general hospital for an acute medical problem were evaluated daily in order to detect symptoms of delirium. 1 key finding →
Study objective We sought to determine the prevalence of mental status impairment in elderly emergency department patients and to assess documentation of and referrals by emergency physicians for mental status impairment after discharge from the ED. 1 key finding →
The authors report on clinical features and mortality rates in a group of 149 patients with apparent idiopathic parkinsonism starting before the age of 40 years. 1 key finding →
Out of a sample of 178 patients with AD, aggression was present in 20%, wandering in 19%, binge-eating in 10%, hyperorality in 6%, urinary incontinence in 48%, and sexual disinhibition in 7%. 5 key findings →
GMHR is a reliable, valid, global bedside measure of severity of general medical comorbidity for patients with dementia that can be used for clinical and research purposes. 1 key finding →
This risk prediction rule may help identify a group of individuals in the ED at high risk of developing delirium who should undergo screening, but it requires external validation. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·1997-06-01
Dementia adversely affects driving performance even in its mild stages, although some persons with DAT seem to drive safely for some time after disease onset. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Psychosomatics·2009-05-01
The data suggest that instruments measuring delirium severity and psychomotor features provide important prognostic information and should be integrated into the assessment of delirium. 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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%),
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.
1,036 records (3.6% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.