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 4,876–4,900 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 196 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Nature neuroscience·2018-02-05
Animal models of Alzheimer's disease have suggested that tau pathology propagation, facilitated by amyloid pathology, may occur along connected pathways. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2005-10-01
A larger WHR may be related to neurodegenerative, vascular, or metabolic processes that affect brain structures underlying cognitive decline and dementia. 3 key findings →
The findings indicate for the first time in humans that PTSD is associated with selective volume loss of the CA3/dentate gyrus subfields, consistent with animal studies, implying that chronic stress suppresses neurogenesis and dendritic branching in these structures. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2008-10-28
Odor identification deficits occur in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and predict clinical conversion from MCI to AD. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2008-05-23
We investigated in a population-based cohort study the association of global and lobar brain tissue volumes with specific cognitive domains and risk of dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2014-09-10
There is increasing recognition of the importance of blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption in aging, dementia, stroke and multiple sclerosis in addition to more commonly-studied pathologies such as tumors. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2006-12-01
Persons with MCI also have impaired motor function, and the degree of impairment in lower extremity function is related to the risk of AD. 1 key finding →
Consumption of up to three servings of wine daily is associated with a lower risk of AD in elderly individuals without the APOE epsilon-4 allele. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2001-04-01
Elevated midlife blood pressures, and the resulting increased white matter hyperintensities, increase the risk for MCI in a group of community-dwelling older men to at least the same degree as apolipoprotein E4 genotype. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2003-02-01
Hyperhomocysteinemia is associated with an increased risk of vascular disease, and recent results suggest that it also could increase the risk of dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neurology·2000-02-01
The results of this preliminary case-control study suggest that estradiol levels may decline significantly in women in whom AD develops. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1993-06-01
Among 251 patients examined 3 months after the onset of acute ischemic stroke, we diagnosed dementia in 66 (26.3%) by using modified DSM-III-R criteria based on neuropsychological, neurological, functional, and psychiatric examinations. 4 key findings →
These findings suggest that plasma biomarkers are altered cross-sectionally and longitudinally, along the AD continuum, and are prospectively associated with cognitive decline and brain Aβ-PET load. 5 key findings →
Several plasma p-tau biomarkers can be used in a specialized memory clinic as a stand-alone biomarker to detect biologically-defined AD. 2 key findings →
The elevated levels of OAβ in the plasma distinguished the AD and control groups and were associated with the severity of symptoms, especially memory performance, in patients with AD. 3 key findings →
Our data suggest that measuring blood biomarkers related to AD pathology and neurodegeneration from DPS venous extends the utility of blood-based biomarkers to remote settings with simplified sampling conditions, storage, and logistics. 4 key findings →
We sought to assess risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers compared with the general community and the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on risk. 2 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.