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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 26–50 of 974 studies published 2015(page 2 of 39)· 27,780 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; 13,259 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.
Also, we performed analyses including only trials in which an increase in the cardiovascular fitness of participants had been demonstrated. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2015-05-28
Cognitive-motor dual-task training was more beneficial than single-task training alone in improving broader domains of cognitive functions of elderly persons, and the improvement was not directly due to modulating Aβ metabolism. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2015-07-03
Impaired odor identification, particularly in the anosmic range, is associated with increased mortality in older adults even after controlling for dementia and medical comorbidity. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100.·JAMA·2015-08-01
Among older persons with AMD, oral supplementation with LCPUFAs or lutein/zeaxanthin had no statistically significant effect on cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Tacrine, the first of the cholinesterase inhibitors to undergo extensive trials for this purpose, was associated with significant adverse effects including hepatotoxicity. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-09-09
The best CSF measures for identifying MCI-AD were Aβ42/total tau (t-tau) and Aβ42/hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau) (area under the curve [AUC] 0.93-0.94). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-05-01
This study showed that subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg/wk) was well tolerated in this small group of patients with Alzheimer disease dementia, but a larger more heterogeneous group needs to be tested before recommending its use for broader groups of patients. 4 key findings →
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best-known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings. 4 key findings →
As tau aggregation pathology correlates with clinical dementia in Alzheimer's disease (AD), a tau aggregation inhibitor (TAI) could have therapeutic utility. 4 key findings →
The HBA-CT program improves cognitive, mood, and sleep functions in older adults 'at risk' of dementia, and therefore offers promise as a secondary prevention strategy. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.·Psychiatry research·2015-01-30
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a debilitating condition associated with mild to moderate cognitive impairment and with a prevalence rate of up to 22% in veterans. 5 key findings →
The results indicate that lithium treatment may have beneficial effects on cognitive performance in subjects with MCI and AD dementia. 4 key findings →
Our results corroborate the positive effect of pb-CT and its maintenance primarily on memory in HE and MCI participants that did not seem to be potentiated by RT. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA psychiatry·2015-05-01
Compared with respective matched nonusers, individuals receiving haloperidol had an increased mortality risk of 3.8% (95% CI, 1.0%-6.6%; P Conclusions and relevance The absolute effect of antipsychotics on mortality in elderly patients with dementia may be higher than previously reported and increases with dose. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2015-03-01
This study showed that flutemetamol injection labeled with radioactive fluorine 18 was safe and had high sensitivity and specificity in an end-of-life population. 3 key findings →
Health care expenditures among persons with dementia were substantially larger than those for other diseases, and many of the expenses were uncovered (uninsured). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-02-13
Using stratification with simply assessed markers, it is now not only possible, but practical to include patients with RBD in neuroprotective trials against Parkinson disease, multiple system atrophy, and dementia with Lewy bodies. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·BMJ·2015-09-01
21% (7065) of the cohort had a record of mental illness at study entry, 25% (8300) had a record of challenging behaviour, and 49% (16,242) had a record of prescription of psychotropic drugs. 5 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%),
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.