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 6,151–6,175 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 247 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.
Identification of individuals at high risk of dementia is essential for development of prevention strategies, but reliable tools are lacking for risk stratification in the population. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2013-12-19
This study compared individuals whose clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) matched or did not match neuropathologic results at autopsy on clinical and functional outcomes (cognitive impairment, functional status and neuropsychiatric symptoms). 4 key findings →
Plasma-based biomarkers would be potential biomarkers for early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) because they are more available and cost-effective than cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or neuroimaging. 4 key findings →
& objective Evidence is limited on how estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) relate to dementia at different ages. 4 key findings →
This study examines whether neuroticism is differentially associated with risk of incident Alzheimer's disease (AD), vascular dementia (VD), and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) using a prospective study design. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·BMJ mental health·2023-07-01
Current dementia risk scores have had limited success in consistently identifying at-risk individuals across different ages and geographical locations. 4 key findings →
Whether or not there is targeted pharmacotherapy for dementia, an active and healthy lifestyle that includes physical activity (PA) may be a better option than medication for preventing dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2003-03-01
Imaging and postmortem studies suggest that frontal lobe white matter (FLWM) volume expands until about the age of 44.6 years and then declines. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2013-07-31
Neurodegenerative diseases are characterised by neuronal loss and cerebral deposition of proteins with altered physicochemical properties. 4 key findings →
Relating clinical symptoms to neuroanatomical profiles of brain damage and ultimately to tissue pathology is a key challenge in the field of neurodegenerative disease and particularly relevant to the heterogeneous disorders that comprise the frontotemporal lobar degeneration spectrum. 4 key findings →
We recently surveyed the relationship between the human brain transcriptome and genome in a series of neuropathologically normal postmortem samples. 4 key findings →
No treatment for frontotemporal dementia (FTD), the second most common type of early-onset dementia, is available, but therapeutics are being investigated to target the 2 main proteins associated with FTD pathological subtypes: TDP-43 (FTLD-TDP) and tau (FTLD-tau). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2008-01-01
Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is used widely for assessment of patients with cognitive impairment, but the pathological correlates are unclear, especially when multiple pathologies are present. 4 key findings →
Different duplications of the APP locus have been identified in five families with autosomal dominant early onset Alzheimer's disease (ADEOAD) and Abeta-related cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). 4 key findings →
To what degree does the so-called 'initial hit' of the brain versus chronic epilepsy contribute towards the memory impairment observed in chronic temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) patients? 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2010-11-12
Although previous research has shown that initiation of postmenopausal estrogen hormone therapy (HT) in late life increases risk of dementia, animal studies and some observational studies have suggested that midlife use of HT may be beneficial; however, this has not been rigorously investigated in large population-based studies. 4 key findings →
From clinically based series it has been proposed that, in homozygotes for the apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (apoE epsilon 4) allele, Alzheimer's disease is almost inevitable by the age of 80. 4 key findings →
Patients with Alzheimer's disease have reduced cerebral blood flow measured by arterial spin labelling magnetic resonance imaging, but it is unclear how this is related to amyloid-β pathology. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most common form of neurodegenerative disease, estimated to contribute 60-70% of all cases of dementia worldwide. 4 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.