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
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 6,801–6,825 of 17,283 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 273 of 692)· 30,580 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; 16,054 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.
Detection of preclinical cognitive deficits is important for identifying those at greatest risk for such disorders as Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neuropsychologia·2023-11-07
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia, characterized by early memory impairments and gradual worsening of daily functions. 2 key findings →
Extreme sleepiness and insomnia not only influence physical health, they also have a significant impact on mental health, such as by causing depression, which has a prevalence of 18% to 21% among young adults aged 16 to 24 in the United Kingdom. 2 key findings →
The idea that eye movements can reflect certain aspects of brain function and inform on the presence of neurodegeneration is not a new one. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·JMIR serious games·2021-06-15
Outcomes of this study show the potential use of practical neurofeedback-based training games for brain exercise to enhance cognitive performance in the elderly population. 3 key findings →
Cognitive frailty is defined as a clinical condition characterized by both physical frailty and cognitive impairment, without reaching the criteria for dementia. 2 key findings →
The study provides the preliminary evidence that family caregivers can use a touchscreen tablet, software and manual package to identify specific tasks and break these down into steps and that people living with dementia can then follow the prompts to complete the tasks. 2 key findings →
Dementia affects a proportionally large number of the older population, presenting a set of symptoms that cause cognitive decline and negatively affect quality of life. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Brain sciences·2023-05-23
Facing an unrelenting rise in dementia cases worldwide, researchers are exploring non-pharmacological ways to ameliorate cognitive decline in later life. 1 key finding →
The increasing number of people suffering from Alzheimer's disease raises the question of their caring at home, especially when the disease causes disability and negative consequences in daily life such as isolation, falls, wandering, errors in drug taking. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·AI and ethics·2023-04-13
The Sammen Om Demens (together for dementia), a citizen science project developing and implementing an AI-based smartphone app targeting citizens with dementia, is presented as an illustrative case of ethical, applied AI entailing interdisciplinary collaborations and inclusive and participative scientific practices engaging citizens, end users, and potential recipients of technological-digital innovation. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Biomolecules·2021-06-26
The early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains a challenge for medical scientists worldwide, leading to a number of research efforts that focus on biosensor development for AD biomarkers. 1 key finding →
In this paper, we presented a classification method based on online learning for AD diagnosis by employing both cortical thickness data and hippocampal shape analysis data. 2 key findings →
This suggests that the N-CAB assessment battery may be an appropriate alternative for the clinical screening of cognition for earlier detection of Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·PloS one·2018-04-22
Virtual reality environments presented on tablets and smartphones have potential to aid the early diagnosis of conditions such as Alzheimer’s dementia by quantifying impairments in navigation performance. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2013-09-13
Abberant lipid metabolism is implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology, but the connections between AD and lipid metabolic pathways are not fully understood. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disease worldwide, with a high prevalence that is expected to double every 20 years. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2010-02-14
Cerebral atherosclerosis (AS), small vessel disease (SVD), and cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) are the most prevalent arterial disorders in the aged brain. 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%),
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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.