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 501–525 of 2,048 studies published 2026(page 21 of 82)· 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.
Plasma p-tau217-based biomarkers showed excellent detecting performance for early amyloid (Thal I-II; area under the curve values > 0.96) and intermediate tau (Braak III-IV; area under the curve values > 0.92). 5 key findings →
Of the 944 clinical cases, 13.0% were characterized as probable LATE (2.4% pure LATE and 10.6% LATE+AD) and 23.7% were characterized as probable AD without LATE. 5 key findings →
Four cognitive phenotypes emerged. One phenotype (18% of Aβ+ participants) showed the steepest cognitive decline, highest progression on the CDR, greater baseline medial temporal tau, and fastest neocortical tau accumulation over 4.6 years (hazard ratio [HR] for decline ≈ 2.9). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·PLoS Medicine·2026-04-28
Dementia is a leading health policy challenge, with cases expected to triple by 2050, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Advanced Science·2026-03-30
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is marked by progressive cognitive decline, highlighting the importance of cognitive assessment in both clinical practice and research. 1 key finding →
Converging evidence suggests that accumulation may be driven by spreading through network connections and/or interactions with amyloid-β (Aβ). 2 key findings →
The Level 3 model achieved high classification performance (AUC: 93.98%), and the Level 1 model achieved comparable performance (AUC: 91.53%). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2026-01-12
This cross-sectional study examines data for participants in the Alzheimer Biomarker Consortium–Down Syndrome study to gauge the concordance of clinical and biological Alzheimer disease staging. 1 key finding →
Dementia developed in 104 individuals (29.6%), including 85 (22.4%) who met core clinical criteria for probable and possible Alzheimer's disease dementia. 3 key findings →
GLP-1RA use was associated with a significantly lower risk of dementia [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.91, P = .001] and Alzheimer's disease (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.98, P = .033) compared with DPP4i use. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's blood-based biomarker (BBM) tests using single biomarkers or ratios are well characterized, but head-to-head comparisons of multi-analyte algorithmic tests on shared cohorts are lacking. 4 key findings →
Loneliness, distinct from social isolation, is a subjective sense of social disconnection exacerbating a public health crisis among older adults. 5 key findings →
Across both cohorts, individuals with lower SES generally exhibited higher BERs (worse performance) than high SES groups, confirming the presence of bias. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Kidney Medicine·2026-07-20
Older patients with kidney failure residing in high-disadvantage neighborhoods, particularly Black patients and those in suburban, rural, or small-town areas, had a higher risk of ADRD compared with those in low-disadvantage neighborhoods. 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.