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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 601–625 of 2,047 studies published 2026(page 25 of 82)· 27,380 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; 12,859 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.
These findings suggest that circadian rhythm disruption as measured via 24-hour RAR is associated with plasma and imaging biomarkers of AD in DS. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Human Genetics·2026-02-16
The majority of individuals at 50% risk of carrying a pathogenic variant causing frontotemporal dementia (FTD) chooses not to undergo presymptomatic genetic testing. 5 key findings →
This study highlights the role of age, gender, APOE genotype, and depressive symptoms in the presentation and progression of cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-05-04
Blood-based biomarkers (BBMs) for Alzheimer disease (AD) offer widely expanded access to biomarker-informed diagnoses in community settings that have previously lacked such resources. 1 key finding →
• Lower MMSE scores—even by a single point—were independently associated with a significantly higher risk of developing ADRD. • Individuals with MMSE scores between 27 and 30 should not be viewed as a uniform group. • Further studies are needed to find ways to prevent ADRD in people who are at risk but do not yet show symptoms. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·NeuroSci·2026-03-20
The Benson Complex Figure Test (BCFT) is a neuropsychological tool designed to assess visuospatial construction and visual memory with lower complexity than traditional tests. 4 key findings →
The abnormal accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau in neurofibrillary tangles is a hallmark of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants in the highest versus lowest MedDiet and MIND categories had 21% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.84) and 14% (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.91) lower dementia risk, respectively. 4 key findings →
Among 45,651 patients, 311 delirium events occurred among continuous users and 84 among early discontinuers, corresponding to incidence rates of 66 and 112 events per 10,000 person-years, respectively. 5 key findings →
More than 50% of older adults with AD/ADRD visit the emergency department (ED) each year [3, 4] and those who do are seriously ill, have significant healthcare costs (e.g., hospital admissions, repeat ED visits) and mortality [4-6]. 5 key findings →
The expert panel from Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia discussed the current situation of various topics related to the diagnostics, general management and treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in these Central Eastern European (CEE) countries, representing around 88 million population. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neurotoxicology·2026-07-24
The potential role of aluminum (Al) in the onset and progression of Alzheimer disease (AD) remains among the most enduring and divisive controversies in environmental neurotoxicology. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neurology India·2026-01-09
Treatment options for dementia mainly comprise of symptomatic treatment, as no disease-modifying therapy currently exists that directly reduces the pathology. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Brain and behavior·2026-09-01
Cognitive impairment is an important non-motor manifestation of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), particularly across the ALS-frontotemporal dementia (ALS-FTD) spectrum. 4 key findings →
CSF samples were retrospectively collected from 253 subjects recruited at Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University, and Beijing Tiantan Hospital between July 2013 and September 2019. 4 key findings →
Late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD), the most common form of dementia among older adults, is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by brain amyloid-β (Aβ) plaque deposition and neurofibrillary tangles. 4 key findings →
Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) has emerged as a promising biomarker of astrocytic reactivity in preclinical Alzheimer´s Disease (AD). 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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.