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 6,301–6,325 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 253 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·BMC neurology·2019-02-28
Patients with dementia with BD had a higher prevalence of comorbidities, greater use of comedications, and greater healthcare utilization and costs than patients with dementia without BD. 5 key findings →
Nurses play a key role in the effective management of pain through the use of pain assessment tools, behavioural observation, and analgesic choice. 2 key findings →
Advance care planning (ACP) is increasingly acknowledged as a key step to enable patients to define their goals/preferences for future medical care, together with their carers and health professionals. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·EClinicalMedicine·2024-01-02
The study included 100.7 million people (51.5% male, 68.0% with ≥70 years), 20.4% died from cancer and 5.8% from dementia; 30.8% of deaths took place at home. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neurology·1998-10-01
A statistically significant yearly decline in hippocampal volume and an increase in temporal horn volume was identified in elderly control subjects who represent typical aging individuals. 4 key findings →
Although all studies were cross-sectional, our results suggest that hippocampal volume reductions generally occur after disease onset in patients with MDD. 5 key findings →
Specific alleles of the DISC1 and TRAX genes on 1q42 appear to contribute to genetic risk for schizophrenia through disruptive effects on the structure and function of the prefrontal cortex, medial temporal lobe, and other brain regions. 2 key findings →
Biological changes activated by stress represent a significant factor influencing brain structure and function in first-episode psychosis through an effect on BDNF. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2005-08-26
The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is limited because it is based on non-specific behavioral and neuroimaging findings. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2013-12-01
Such findings challenge the proposed sequence and suggest that Aβ-independent precursors underlie AD-typical neurodegenerative patterns. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Psychiatry research·2012-03-01
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a genetically influenced psychiatric illness with disruptions in neural systems supporting cognition and emotion regulation. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2008-06-01
Occipital predominance of microbleeds with corresponding parietooccipital leukoaraiosis has not been well described in prior imaging studies of AD. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Sleep·2013-05-01
Study objective Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) contributes to the development of systemic hypertension, and hypertension strongly predicts the development of white matter change (WMC). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Nature communications·2022-09-24
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a chronic neurodegenerative disease characterized by the progressive accumulation of amyloid-beta and neurofibrillary tangles of tau in the neocortex. 1 key finding →
The high accuracies for Aβ pathology and future AD dementia using fully automated instruments are promising for implementing plasma biomarkers in clinical trials and clinical routine. 2 key findings →
We used multinomial regression models to estimate discrimination [concordance (C) statistics] among three amyloid PET stages (low, intermediate, high), four tau PET stages (Braak 0, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6) and a combined amyloid and tau PET stage (none/low versus intermediate/high severity) using plasma biomarkers as predictors separately within unimpaired and impaired individuals. 5 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.