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 26–50 of 642 studies published 2011(page 2 of 26)· 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.
Thirteen significant risk factors were identified: age, male gender, lung diseases, dysphagia, diabetes mellitus, severe dementia, angiotensin I-converting enzyme deletion/deletion genotype, bad oral health, malnutrition, Parkinson's disease, and the use of antipsychotic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. 3 key findings →
Donepezil and antidepressant therapy temporarily improved global cognition (treatment × time interaction, F₂,₂₁₆ = 3.78; P = .03), but effect sizes were small (Cohen d = 0.27, group difference at 1 year). 2 key findings →
A rapidly growing literature strongly suggests that exercise, specifically aerobic exercise, may attenuate cognitive impairment and reduce dementia risk. 5 key findings →
Patients with osteoarthritis had excess all cause mortality compared with the general population (standardised mortality ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.41 to 1.70). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·BMC medical genomics·2011-01-26
The eMERGE (electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics) Network is an NHGRI-supported consortium of five institutions to explore the utility of DNA repositories coupled to Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems for advancing discovery in genome science. eMERGE also includes a special emphasis on the ethical, legal and social issues related to these endeavors. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Injury·2011-06-17
Whilst there is no conclusive evidence of the preoperative predictors for mortality following hip fractures, special attention should be paid to the above 12 strong evidence predictors. 3 key findings →
To determine incidence of dementia in type 2 diabetic (T2DM) patients, and whether there are adverse or favorable effects of oral agents (OA) in DM, we obtained a representative cohort of 800,000 from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance database. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2011-12-06
Whether mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has a distinct neuropathological profile that reflects an intermediate state between no cognitive impairment and dementia is not clear. 5 key findings →
A decision aid about feeding options in advanced dementia reduced decisional conflict for surrogates and increased their knowledge and communication about feeding options with providers. 1 key finding →
ChEIs may increase the risk of syncope, with no effects on falls, fracture, or accidental injury in cognitively impaired older adults. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2011-06-01
Our results suggest that diet may be a powerful environmental factor that modulates Alzheimer disease risk through its effects on central nervous system concentrations of Aβ42, lipoproteins, oxidative stress, and insulin. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2011-04-11
Summary results for patients with mild AD were obtained by contrasting the summary results for patients with mild or moderate AD with the summary results for the subset of patients with moderate AD. 2 key findings →
Ten weeks of treatment with PF-04494700 was safe and well tolerated in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease, indicating the feasibility of a larger long-term efficacy trial. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·JAMA·2011-01-01
Florbetapir-PET imaging was performed a mean of 99 days (range, 1-377 days) before death for the 29 individuals in the primary analysis cohort. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2011-09-25
Previous conclusions of a lack of efficacy for cognitive training in MCI may have been influenced by not clearly defining the intervention. 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.