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 4,651–4,675 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 187 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.
High blood pressure is one of the most important risk factors for ischaemic heart disease, stroke, other cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease and dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1997-01-01
To assess the relationship between dementia, neuronal loss, and neuropathological findings in Alzheimer's disease (AD), we counted the number of neurons, senile plaques, and neurofibrillary tangles in a high-order association cortex. 1 key finding →
This report discusses the public health impact of Alzheimer's disease (AD), including incidence and prevalence, mortality rates, costs of care, and overall effect on caregivers and society. 2 key findings →
The association between the pathological features of Alzheimer's disease and dementia is stronger in younger old persons than in older old persons. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Pain·2013-12-01
This study sought to determine the prevalence and impact of pain in a nationally representative sample of older adults in the United States. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Nature communications·2021-02-03
MR-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS), in combination with intravenous microbubble administration, has been applied for focal temporary BBB opening in patients with neurodegenerative disorders and brain tumors. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA psychiatry·2016-12-01
Loneliness is a perceived state of social and emotional isolation that has been associated with cognitive and functional decline and an increased risk of incident AD dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Maturitas·2016-01-04
Although multi-component social support interventions may improve caregiver well-being, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether a change in social support is the underlying mediating factor. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neuropsychology·2004-01-01
A meta-analysis of 27 primary studies was conducted to examine the relationship between neuropsychological functioning and driving ability for adults with dementia. 2 key findings →
Study objective Delirium's adverse effect on long-term mortality in older hospitalized patients is well documented, whereas its effect in older emergency department (ED) patients remains unclear. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2015-05-01
Vascular endothelial growth factor was associated with baseline hippocampal volume (t277 = 2.62; P = .009), longitudinal hippocampal atrophy (t858 = 2.48; P = .01), and longitudinal decline in memory (t1629 = 4.09; P Conclusions and relevance Elevated cerebrospinal fluid VEGF was associated with more optimal brain aging in vivo. 4 key findings →
Anticholinergic medication burden in schizophrenia is substantial, common, conferred by multiple medication classes, and associated with cognitive impairments across all cognitive domains. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2005-12-01
Those who viewed Caregiver's Friend: Dealing with Dementia 30 days postexposure demonstrated significant improvements in depression, anxiety, level and frequency of stress, caregiver strain, self-efficacy, and intention to seek help, as well as perceptions of positive aspects of caregiving. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA·2011-01-01
Lower plasma β-amyloid 42 and 42/40 levels have been associated with incident dementia, but results are conflicting and few have investigated cognitive decline among elders without dementia. 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 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.