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 626–650 of 3,821 studies published 2025(page 26 of 153)· 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.
Vaccination is increasingly acknowledged as an effective preventive measure not only against specific infections, but also for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in high-risk patients. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-04-23
Up-to-date, strictly cross-nationally comparable and nationally representative data on cognitive health are essential for our understanding of the dementia-related challenges in healthcare, to detect shortcomings in healthcare systems and to design effective prevention strategies. 1 key finding →
Forty-three proteins were differentially regulated in FTD compared to controls and AD, reflecting axon development, regulation of synapse assembly, and cell-cell adhesion mediator activity pathways. 5 key findings →
A total of 2176 person living with dementia-caregiver dyads were enrolled; 1271 persons living with dementia (58.4%) and 1650 caregivers (75.8%) were female, and their mean (SD) age were 80.6 (8.5) years and 65.2 (12.3) years, respectively. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-07-09
From an initial cohort of 18 605 participants, 10 058 were included (5062 men [50.3%]; 4996 women [49.7%]; mean [SD] age, 60.9 [7.2] years). 5 key findings →
A total of 1869 participants contributed 5309 observations (mean age 82.9 years, 21.0% Black, 9.3% met research-based dementia criteria). 5 key findings →
. Longitudinally, older age (OR=1.14 [1.06-1.22], p<.001), higher levels of p-tau217 (OR=10.37 [3.00-35.02], p<.001) and higher neuropsychiatric symptoms (OR=1.19 [1.02-1.39], p=.023) were associated with higher odds of progression to dementia. 5 key findings →
Of 9,361 SPRINT participants (mean age 67.1 ± 9.5 years, 36.7% female, 58.7% non-Hispanic White), 710 and 1,289 were new users of an ARB or ACEI. 5 key findings →
Individuals with dementia and their care partners often report dissatisfaction with the disclosure process due to insufficient information and support. 2 key findings →
There was a significantly higher risk of developing a dementia diagnosis in Hispanic/Latino and NHB participants than NHW participants and comparably increased dementia hazard ratios in the Hispanic/Latino, NHB, and NHW APOE4 carriers than non-carriers (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval {CI}] 1.54 [1.25-1.91], 1.25 [1.00-1.57], and 1.55 [1.40-1.72]). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·AIDS·2025-12-01
Among 24 762 people with HIV and 494 963 people without HIV (86.9% men, 45.5% White, 23.1% Black, 20.3% Hispanic), incident dementia diagnoses declined from 2000 to 2023 in both people with and without HIV (-7.68 and -2.70% per period, respectively). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-04-30
At least 45% of dementia and 60% of stroke cases are due to modifiable risk factors and could in part be prevented through healthy behavior. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·JAMA Cardiology·2025-11-10
ATTRACTnet was developed in an internal test set of 799 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.1 [11.1] years; 516 [64.7%] male and 283 [35.3%] female) using 5-fold cross-validation with an additional external test set of 422 patients. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·BMC Nursing·2025-01-21
Age, education level, number of pain sites, pain duration, pain level, depression and sleep quality were risk factors of MCI in older patients with chronic pain. 5 key findings →
Between Sept 1, 2017, and Feb 28, 2019, 19 403 individuals were invited to participate and 9745 participants (1525 with dementia, 8220 without dementia) were included. 4445 (45·6%) of 9745 participants were male and 5300 (54·4%) were female. 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 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.