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 4,226–4,250 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 170 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.
Exercise at midlife may reduce the odds of dementia in older adulthood, suggesting that exercise interventions should be explored as a potential strategy for delaying disease onset. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·BMJ open·2017-10-22
We have reported, for the first time, the dose-response relationship between LTPA and dementia, further supporting the international PA guideline from the standpoint of dementia prevention. 1 key finding →
A decade has passed since we published a comprehensive review in this journal addressing the topic of promoting successful cognitive aging, making this a good time to take stock of the field. 5 key findings →
The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Neurology·1993-02-01
Criteria for the diagnosis of vascular dementia (VaD) that are reliable, valid, and readily applicable in a variety of settings are urgently needed for both clinical and research purposes. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2015-12-15
These findings suggest that (18)F T807 PET could have value as a biomarker that reflects both the progression of AD tauopathy and the emergence of clinical impairment. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Nature·2020-02-05
Synucleinopathies are neurodegenerative diseases that are associated with the misfolding and aggregation of α-synuclein, including Parkinson's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies and multiple system atrophy 1 . 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Diabetologia·2005-11-08
Compared to people without diabetes, people with diabetes have a greater rate of decline in cognitive function and a greater risk of cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2015-12-14
Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a neurodegeneration characterized by the abnormal accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau protein within the brain. 2 key findings →
There were 140,055 subjects in the 1998-1999 cohort and 146,328 in the 1999-2000 cohort, of which 55.5 percent and 59.7 percent, respectively, were immunized. 4 key findings →
Reduced exposure to environmental factors that contribute to cancer risk, tumour-suppressor genes on chromosome 21, or a slower rate of replication or higher likelihood of apoptosis in Down's syndrome cells, could be possible reasons for paucity of cancer in people with Down's syndrome. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2011-03-01
In our training set, people with Parkinson's disease, multiple system atrophy, and dementia with Lewy bodies had lower CSF α-synuclein concentrations than patients with Alzheimer's disease and other neurological disorders. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Neurology·1993-11-01
We determined incidence and future projections of dementia after AIDS onset in 492 homosexual men with AIDS in the Baltimore/Los Angeles sites of the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, 64 of whom developed dementia. 3 key findings →
A single-question screen for RBD may reliably detect disease, with psychometric properties favorably comparable to those reported for longer questionnaires. 2 key findings →
Blood-based AD biomarker concentrations are associated with pathological and clinical diagnoses and can predict future development of clinical AD, providing evidence that they can be incorporated into multi-ethnic, community-based studies. 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 28,180 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.