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 7,276–7,300 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 292 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 55 out of 100.·Heart rhythm·2017-09-22
There is a paucity of longitudinal research investigating the relations between atrial fibrillation (AF) and domain-specific cognitive performance. 4 key findings →
This article focuses on the effects of operational differences in case ascertainment on estimates of prevalence and incidence of cognitive impairment and/or dementia of the Alzheimer type. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2006-01-09
Neuronal degeneration and dopamine loss in the preclinical phase of Parkinson disease may produce subtle complaints before clinically recognizable symptoms emerge. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·BMJ open·2022-02-23
Social isolation and loneliness have been associated with increased risk of dementia, but it is not known whether this risk is modified or confounded by genetic risk of dementia. 4 key findings →
Greater intracranial volume (ICV) has been associated with less severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) symptoms at a given level of cerebral pathology. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology·2017-09-20
Within the prospective population-based Rotterdam Study, we measured serum magnesium levels in 9,569 participants, free from dementia at baseline (1997-2008). 4 key findings →
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) have overlapping symptoms, and accurate differential diagnosis is important for targeted intervention and treatment. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology·2021-12-22
Experimental studies suggest that the balance between short and long β-amyloid (Aβ) species might modulate the toxic effects of Aβ in Alzheimer disease (AD), but clinical evidence is lacking. 4 key findings →
Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) is frequently complicated in its late stages by the AIDS dementia complex, a neurological syndrome characterized by abnormalities in cognition, motor performance, and behavior. 4 key findings →
The shared role of amyloid-β (Aβ) deposition in cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) and Alzheimer disease (AD) is arguably the clearest instance of crosstalk between neurodegenerative and cerebrovascular processes. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Nature communications·2014-06-03
Mitochondria and the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) form tight structural associations and these facilitate a number of cellular functions. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2011-12-01
Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) results from deposition of β-amyloid in the media and adventitia of small arteries and capillaries of the leptomeninges and cerebral cortex and is a major cause of lobar intracerebral hemorrhage and cognitive impairment in the elderly. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology·1996-06-01
We studied the frequency, severity, and clinical correlations of cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) in 117 CERAD subjects with autopsy-confirmed AD. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Nature·1990-09-01
Alzheimer's disease, a fatal neurodegenerative disorder of unknown aetiology, is usually considered to be a single disorder because of the general uniformity of the disease phenotype. 4 key findings →
With advances in healthcare and an ageing population, the number of older adults with epilepsy is set to rise substantially across the world. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Circulation research·2022-04-14
Inflammation and immune mechanisms are crucially involved in the pathophysiology of the development, acute damage cascades, and chronic course after ischemic stroke. 4 key findings →
The chronic effects of repetitive head impacts (RHI) on the development of neuroinflammation and its relationship to chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) are unknown. 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.