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 451–475 of 1,426 studies scoring ≤ 29 out of 100 (page 19 of 58)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
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.
This includes adapting and disseminating care delivery innovations from one system to another, as well as measuring and sharing in the improved outcomes and reduced costs that might result. 5 key findings →
It is estimated that for people aged 65 years and older, the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease was nearly double for women compared with men (Weinstein et al., 2012). 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (Alzheimer's), an ultimately fatal form of dementia, is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for 3.6% of all deaths in 2014 (1,2). 3 key findings →
The “WarioWare: Move It!” intervention significantly improved physical flexibility, joint range of motion, motor coordination, hand dexterity, and cognitive function among older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia residing in rural LTCFs. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-21
Respondents who reported no difficulty deciding (DECIDE = 2) had substantially lower odds of SCD than those who reported difficulty (DECIDE = 1; aOR approximately 0.13; FDR < 0.05). 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-21
The term Precision Aging describes an approach that focuses on multi-domain profiles of risks impacting individual trajectories of age-related cognitive functioning. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-20
Isolated REM sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) is the strongest prodromal marker of Parkinsons disease (PD) and dementia with Lewy bodies, yet diagnosis requires video-polysomnography with assisted montage and expert scoring and does not scale to screening or trial enrichment. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-20
INTRODUCTIONNovel capillary-blood collection methods have not yet been evaluated for a wide range of central nervous system (CNS) and neurodegenerative disease-related proteins. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-19
Alzheimers disease (AD) unfolds over decades preceding cognitive symptoms, and measuring the full scope of its molecular complexity remains difficult. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-19
Parkinsons disease and dementia with Lewy bodies patients both demonstrated weaker global BOLD-CSF coupling compared to controls, with no detectable difference between patient groups. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-19
The Dementia Trials Accelerator (DTA) is a UK-wide programme designed to improve the feasibility, efficiency, and inclusiveness of recruitment into clinical trials of dementia and related brain-health conditions. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-19
Cognitively normal older adults are often regarded as a homogeneous population in preventive and disease-modifying clinical trials for dementia. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-19
BackgroundPathogenic variants in GCH1 have been associated with Parkinsons disease (PD), but the clinical phenotype and longitudinal disease course of GCH1-associated PD remain incompletely characterized. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-21
Cognitive and behavioural impairment frequently accompanies motor decline in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), with 15% of cases meeting the diagnostic criteria for frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-21
Structural variants (SVs) are a major source of genetic variation yet remain underexplored in healthy aging and neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-17
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) typically represent Alzheimers disease (AD) risk loci by a single lead SNP, although the lead SNP may capture only part of the genetic variation at a locus. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-17
Body mass index (BMI), type 2 diabetes (T2D) and related cardiometabolic features associate with Alzheimers disease (AD) risk, yet shared mechanisms remain poorly understood. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-17
Genetic variation at the TMEM106B locus has been associated with Alzheimers disease (AD) and related neurodegenerative phenotypes, yet its haplotypic architecture remains incompletely resolved. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-17
BackgroundAlzheimers disease (AD) is characterized by amyloid beta and tau accumulation accompanied by altered inflammatory responses. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-20
Hexanucleotide repeat expansions in C9orf72 are the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia, yet the predictive information contained within associated inflammatory and proteinopathy markers remains incompletely characterised. 1 key finding →
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.