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 225 studies scoring ≥ 67 out of 100 published 2024(page 3 of 9)· 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.
EA intervention could increase the MoCA score and improve the neutral and consistency response of the STROOP test in VCIND patients (P < 0.05). fMRI functional connectivity analysis showed that, after EA, the default mode network (DMN) function of the posterior cingulate gyrus, left middle frontal gyrus, left anterior cingulate gyrus, left and right superior temporal gyrus, right insula, left precentral gyrus and other brain regions were significantly higher than that in the control group. 5 key findings →
EQW affected FCN2 (Cohen's d -0.019), PAI-1 (Cohen's d -0.033), sVCAM-1 (Cohen's d 0.035) and a cytokine-cytokine cluster (Cohen's d 0.037) significantly compared with placebo. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-01-17
Among 91,881 participants (mean age 59.3 at baseline, 55.0% female participants), 16,507 incident ADRD cases were identified from Medicare claims (1999-2016, mean follow-up 9.3 years). 5 key findings →
The 3-minute START task offers a means of supporting cognitive health in older adults and could be used at scale and within a precision medicine approach to reduce risk of cognitive decline in a targeted way. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100.·Frontiers in aging·2024-08-08
The motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR) is a syndrome characterized by subjective memory complaints and slow walking speeds that can identify older adults at increased risk for developing Alzheimer's disease or a related dementia (ADRD). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100.·PloS one·2024-03-12
This study investigated the effect of a home-based computerized cognitive training program that utilizes a digital application for training abacus-based mental calculations, "SoroTouch," on the cognitive functions of healthy middle-aged and older people using a randomized controlled trial. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-05-22
The cognitive impairment cohort (n = 14,175) included participants without evidence of impairment at baseline who underwent follow-up testing. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-09-18
Greater MIND diet adherence was associated with decreased risk of cognitive impairment in female participants but not male participants, with no difference between Black participants and White participants. 5 key findings →
The addition of CS to the SPEP was a safe and effective method to gain statistically significant improvements in cognition, balance, FM, UEMS, IADL, and reduction in depression in PwAD. 2 key findings →
This meta-analysis pooled 30 studies (nearly 9,800 people from 10 countries) to see how well p-tau217 measured in blood or spinal fluid detects Alzheimer's amyloid and tau pathology compared with PET scans. 4 key findings →
The overall number of participants enrolled was 192, with a mean (standard deviation) amyloid PET load at baseline of 101.80 (29.80) centiloids. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.·European neurology·2024-04-24
A total of seven studies were included. The forest plot results showed that taking lithium therapy reduced the risk of AD (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.78) and is also protective in reducing the risk of dementia (RR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.56-0.77). 4 key findings →
Subjects experiencing multisensory impairments concurrent with visual impairment demonstrated a negative association with cognitive function. 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.