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 5,651–5,675 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 227 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 58 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2016-04-21
Two themes were developed from 12 studies: caregiver needs related to the management of older people with dementia and caregivers' personal needs. 1 key finding →
Although white matter hyperintensities have traditionally been viewed as a marker of vascular disease, recent pathology studies have found an association between white matter hyperintensities and Alzheimer's disease pathologies. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Journal of neurology·2008-01-22
Using established clinical diagnostic standards for dementia the overall rate on routine outpatient neurological care is 28.6%, but using more sensitive neuropsychological measures, rates for cognitive impairment might be up to 2-fold higher. 3 key findings →
This systematic review of the literature focuses on the influence of ethnic, cultural, and geographic factors on the caregivers of patients with dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Human genetics·2017-06-09
In this study, we report the experience of the only reference clinical next-generation sequencing lab in Saudi Arabia with the first 1000 families who span a wide-range of suspected Mendelian phenotypes. 1 key finding →
Our findings suggest cutoffs may need to be stratified by race/ethnicity and education to ensure detecting MCI from normal and MCI from dementia. 2 key findings →
This paper reports findings from a systematic review of the literature on the general public's knowledge and understanding of dementia/Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2010-07-08
We examined longitudinal associations between the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (ApoE4(+) status) and several cognitive outcomes and tested effect modification by sex. 3 key findings →
Despite methodological inconsistency, supporting caregivers appears to be an effective strategy often improving well-being of caregiver or care-recipient and resulting in additional benefits for society. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2019-09-01
Three themes emerged from 29 included studies: self-care needs and behaviors of ICGs, barriers to performing self-care, and enablers of self-care. 1 key finding →
The results indicate that short term use of this piperine-enhanced curcuminoid preparation is unlikely to result in a clinically significant interaction involving CYP3A, CYP2C9 or the paracetamol conjugation enzymes. 3 key findings →
Non-linear associations between features of land use and cognitive impairment were confirmed in this new cohort of older people in England. 4 key findings →
In these older adults, associations of risk factors with a given cause of death were related to specific deficits in that same organ system. 2 key findings →
Our goal was to determine the patient and caregiver characteristics associated with the reduction of employment hours in caregivers of frail elders. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Sleep medicine·2012-04-12
This study robustly characterized the prevalence of sleep complaints in large samples of the elderly in LAMICs and identified potential risk factors that may be specific to these populations. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2022-01-24
Our findings elucidate the predictive values of environmental factors and comorbid conditions in identifying RBD patients at higher risk of phenoconversion. 4 key findings →
Anxiety disorders were the most common class of disorders both in the 12 months before the interview (weighted prevalence 5·0%, 4·2-5·8) and in lifetime (7·6%, 6·3-8·8). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2008-08-01
Optimal ranges of CDR-SOB scores corresponding to the global CDR scores were 0.5 to 4.0 for a global score of 0.5, 4.5 to 9.0 for a global score of 1.0, 9.5 to 15.5 for a global score of 2.0, and 16.0 to 18.0 for a global score of 3.0. 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.