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 576–600 of 1,362 studies published 2022(page 24 of 55)· 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·PloS one·2022-07-13
Hippocampal subfield atrophy is a prime structural change in the brain, associated with cognitive aging and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Clinical genetic diagnosis was achieved in 7 of 50 (14%) of the patients, with a further 8 patients (16%) found to have established risk factors which may have contributed to their EOD. 5 key findings →
We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of human extreme longevity (EL), defined as surviving past the 99th survival percentile, by aggregating data from four centenarian studies. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·BMC genomics·2022-01-28
Using the data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), we performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) between 565,373 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and 16 key AD biomarkers from 1,576 subjects at four visits. 5 key findings →
We identified 7 functional variants in APP/PSENs in 8 patients, including 1 APP mutation (p. Val715Met), 3 PSEN1 mutations (p. Phe177Ser; p. Arg377Met; p. Ile416Thr), and 3 PSEN2 mutations (p. Glu24Lys; p. Gly34Ser; p. Met239Thr). 5 key findings →
The z-scores of perfusion-weighted images of both tracers showed high correlations across the brain, especially in the frontal and parietal lobes, which were the brain regions with pronounced perfusion deficit in the patient group (R = 0.83 ± 0.08; range, 0.61-0.95). 4 key findings →
Percentage of visually tau-positive scans increased with amyloid-beta deposition measured in 18F-florbetaben Centiloids (CL) (7.7% (<36 CL), 80% (>83 CL)). 18F-PI-2620 standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) was correlated with increased 18F-florbetaben CL in several regions of interest. 5 key findings →
Both MRI-based and CT-based rdcCL scales showed that FMM and FBB were highly correlated with each other, globally and regionally (R2 = 0.96~0.99). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·GeroScience·2022-08-17
The paper aimed to compare how factors previously identified as predictive factors for cognitive decline and dementia related to cognitive performance on the one hand and brain health on the other. 5 key findings →
We observed that greater social isolation was related to increased anxiety in people with cognitive impairment (coefficients = 0.7242, t = 2.51, p = 0.015), adjusting for severity of cognitive impairment, race, pain, depression, activities of daily living, and instrumental activities of daily living. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2022-07-11
Concomitant LATE-NC and vascular pathology were equally common, and cognition was equally impaired, in PART (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] = 24.8 ± 6.9) and ADNC (MMSE = 24.2 ± 6.0). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·JAMA health forum·2022-04-01
Among the included 3 515 329 Medicare fee-for-service decedents, when adjusted for age and sex, the percentage of older decedents with an ADRD diagnosis increased from 34.7% in 2004 to 47.2% in 2017. 5 key findings →
P‐tau181 in CSF and plasma predicted tau accumulation (r > 0.36, P < .001), even in AD‐continuum individuals with normal baseline tau‐PET (A+T–; r > 0.37, P < .05). 4 key findings →
Clinical trials testing tau-targeting therapies may benefit from using fluid biomarkers to recruit individuals at risk of tau aggregation. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Journal of neurology·2022-03-14
Plasma NfL levels might be a promising biomarker for neurodegeneration to discriminate cognitive decline due to AD from other conditions causing cognitive impairment in prodromal stages. 1 key finding →
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.