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
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 51–75 of 188 studies scoring ≥ 67 out of 100 published 2022(page 3 of 8)· 30,980 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 16,452 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.
Despite the large number of commercially available mobile health applications, the magnitude of the scientific evidence base remains very limited. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.·Nature Genetics·2022-04
This was, at the time, the largest genetic study of Alzheimer's disease ever done, comparing DNA from over 111,000 people with the disease (or a strong family history) to nearly 680,000 people without it. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-07-11
Then, voxel-wise brainwide association analyses were used to identify gray matter volumes (GMVs) associated with social isolation and with loneliness. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2022-07-01
A large fraction of dementia cases in the US were associated with potentially modifiable risk factors, especially for Black and Hispanic individuals. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.·Nature medicine·2022-11-10
A major unanswered question in the dementia field is whether cognitively unimpaired individuals who harbor both Alzheimer's disease neuropathological hallmarks (that is, amyloid-β plaques and tau neurofibrillary tangles) can preserve their cognition over time or are destined to decline. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.·GeroScience·2022-07-06
Cohort studies suggest that the Mediterranean diet is associated with better global cognition in older adults, slower cognitive decline and lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
We identified that combining plasma p-tau217 and a brief cognitive composite score was strongly related to greater risk of progression to AD dementia in MCI patients, suggesting that these measures could be key components of future prognostic algorithms for early AD. 2 key findings →
The Japan-Multimodal Intervention Trial for Prevention of Dementia PRIME Tamba (J-MINT PRIME Tamba) is a randomised controlled trial to prevent cognitive decline in community-dwelling cognitively ordinary older people at risk of dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2022-12-22
While genome wide association studies (GWASs) of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) in European (EUR) ancestry cohorts have identified approximately 83 potentially independent AD risk loci, progress in non-European populations has lagged. 5 key findings →
During 11 years of follow-up, women were 96% more likely than men to be diagnosed with clinical AD dementia after adjusting for age and education in the younger age group 60 to 70 years (n = 946; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 3.56) although not in the older age group (70+) (n = 452; hazard ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.53). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2022-10-03
Data from 17 107 individuals (321 Asian, 635 Black, 829 Hispanic, and 15 322 White) with MCI or dementia and amyloid PET were analyzed between April 2020 and January 2022. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.·JAMA·2022-04-01
Dementia is a significant public health challenge and may have greater incidence among older adults from underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.·Brain sciences·2022-09-08
The heterogeneous and multi-factorial nature of dementia requires the consideration of all health aspects when predicting the risk of its development and planning strategies for its prevention. 2 key findings →
The results of the present systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that the prevalence of OD is high in different populations and its trend has been increasing in recent years. 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%),
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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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.