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
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 5,726–5,750 of 17,283 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 230 of 692)· 30,580 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; 16,054 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.
Several studies have shown that pharmacological and cognitive treatments for Alzheimers's disease improve cognitive function for short periods, but fewer studies have evaluated the efficacy of those treatments for longer (2-year) periods. 3 key findings →
The first WHO guidelines for risk reduction of cognitive decline and dementia marked an important milestone in the field of dementia prevention. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Brain sciences·2021-04-21
Most prevalent neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis are heterogeneous in their clinical profiles and underlying pathophysiology, although they typically share the presence of cognitive impairment that worsens significantly during the course of the disease. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Current aging science·2010-02-01
The relationship between diet and cognitive function has been a topic of increasing interest, as numerous studies have shown that variations in dietary practices and nutrient intake may protect against age-related cognitive decline, as well as the development of dementia and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Either supportive counseling (SC) or cognitive training (CT) was used in an attempt to enhance the efficiency of a standard pharmacologic treatment for dementia, viz, dihydroergotoxine mesylate (DEM, Hydergine). 5 key findings →
A digitally delivered intervention with minimal support appears acceptable and potentially engaging to older adults with higher and lower levels of cognitive performance. 3 key findings →
Our results indicate that glycosphingolipids regulated by GCS are important modulators of Aβ neuropathology and that glycosphingolipid homeostasis plays a critical role in the consolidation of remote memories. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Rejuvenation research·2012-04-01
Over the past several years, increasing evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet has a beneficial influence on several age-related diseases, showing protective effect on health and longevity. 2 key findings →
We conducted two studies with medically hospitalized cancer and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients to assess the reliability and validity of a new measure of delirium severity, the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS). 4 key findings →
The clbC form of methylmalonic acidaemia is a rare and poorly understood condition which results from impaired biosynthesis of methylcobalamin and adenosylcobalamin. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Gerontology·1996-01-01
In this study, 97 patients with senile dementia of the Alzheimer type (SDAT) in a nursing home were followed over a period of 2 years, and the relationship between falls and gait function was examined. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Anesthesiology·2012-04-01
This is the first prospective study employing validated measures of delirium to identify an association between preexisting obstructive sleep apnea and postoperative delirium. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Journal of neurology·2004-07-01
In patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) disturbances of mental state constitute some of the most difficult treatment challenges of advanced disease, often limiting effective treatment of motor symptoms and leading to increased disability and poor quality of life. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2013-07-02
An expanded hexanucleotide repeat in the C9orf72 gene is the most common genetic cause of frontotemporal dementia and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (c9FTD/ALS). 3 key findings →
EEG findings in 62 patients with senile dementia of alzheimer type (SDA), 22 patients with multi-infarct dementia (MID) and 90 controls of same age and sex were studied. 3 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%),
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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.