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
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 5,876–5,900 of 15,839 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 236 of 634)· 28,580 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; 14,058 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.
Neurological degeneration after neuroinflammation, such as that resulting from Alzheimer's disease (AD), stroke, multiple sclerosis (MS), and post-traumatic brain injury (TBI), is typically associated with high mortality and morbidity and with permanent cognitive dysfunction, which places a heavy economic burden on families and society. 1 key finding →
Revised algorithms for dementia diagnosis using Medicare administrative data have reasonable accuracy for research purposes, but investigators should be cognizant of the tradeoffs in accuracy among the approaches they consider. 1 key finding →
The endocannabinoids are a family of bioactive lipids that activate CB1 cannabinoid receptors in the brain and exert intense emotional and cognitive effects. 3 key findings →
A reduced removal of dysfunctional mitochondria is common to aging and age-related neurodegenerative pathologies such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2021-02-05
Most current Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive disorders (MCI) studies use single data modality to make predictions such as AD stages. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Human brain mapping·2021-12-14
To acquire larger samples for answering complex questions in neuroscience, researchers have increasingly turned to multi-site neuroimaging studies. 5 key findings →
In this review, we focus on the potential role of the γ-aminobutyric acidergic (GABAergic) system in age-related episodic memory impairments in humans, with a particular focus on Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Human brain mapping·2015-02-09
Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients exhibit alterations in the functional connectivity between spatially segregated brain regions which may be related to both local gray matter (GM) atrophy as well as a decline in the fiber integrity of the underlying white matter tracts. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2015-02-28
Multivariate pattern analysis and statistical machine learning techniques are attracting increasing interest from the neuroimaging community. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Nature aging·2021-10-11
The evident genetic, pathological, and clinical heterogeneity of Alzheimer's disease (AD) poses challenges for traditional drug development. 2 key findings →
Combining multi-modality data for brain disease diagnosis such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) commonly leads to improved performance than those using a single modality. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Stroke·1999-08-01
Our findings suggest that antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, hypertension, or minor head trauma are most likely to precipitate cerebral hemorrhage in patients with CAA who are also epsilon2 carriers. 5 key findings →
Brain MR images are the most suitable method for detecting chronic nerve diseases such as brain tumors, strokes, dementia, and multiple sclerosis. 5 key findings →
We present iCluster, a fast and efficient algorithm that clusters a set of images while co-registering them using a parameterized, nonlinear transformation model. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurology·2001-05-01
Neurologists' use of ICD-9CM codes in a sample of 181 consecutive, new patients evaluated for dementia by 48 of all 49 neurologists from the Rochester, NY, area over a 1-year period was examined. 1 key finding →
Earlier treatment leads to a small delay in institutionalization among AD patients, resulting in significant costs savings to Medicaid. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Physical therapy·2009-04-23
The TUG, the 6MWT, and gait speed are reliable outcome measures for use with people with AD, recognizing that individual variability of performance is high. 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%),
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 (3.6% 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.