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 7,551–7,575 of 17,563 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 303 of 703)· 30,980 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; 16,452 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.
We identified several significant sex-specific and sex-dimorphic differentially expressed genes in neurons, microglia, astrocytes and oligodendrocytes, including both cross-sectional changes and alterations from 7 months to 17 months of age. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Antioxidants·2026-01-03
Emerging evidence suggests that viral infections may contribute to the onset and progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other forms of dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Stem Cell Reports·2026-08-20
A major hurdle in Alzheimer disease research is the failure of mouse models to capture complexities of the human brain that contributes to repeated clinical trial failure. 1 key finding →
It has been demonstrated to have neuroprotective effects in cellular models of neurodegenerative diseases; however, its precise mechanism of action in alleviating tau pathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD), as well as its potential to improve cognitive deficits in animal models, has not yet been elucidated. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·BMC Public Health·2025-01-02
The analysis revealed five distinct themes: (1) impact of the program, (2) facilitators enhancing participation, (3) barriers hindering participation, (4) suggestions for improving participation and (5) challenges to adopt digital platforms. 5 key findings →
The MI group significantly improved in attention-executive functioning (p = 0.003) compared to ACI (Cohen's d: 0.47, 95% CI 0.13-0.79). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Nutrients·2026-03-27
After adjusting for baseline scores via ANCOVA, the experimental group demonstrated significantly higher post-intervention outcomes compared to the control group (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease (PD-MCI) can affect several cognitive domains, including attention, working memory, executive functions, language, visuospatial skills, and episodic memory, resulting in a progressive reduction of autonomy and an increased risk of dementia. 1 key finding →
Although a substantial proportion of TG participants achieved high MI accuracy values, statistical analyses revealed no cognitive improvements specific to TG, suggesting limited efficacy of the MI-based protocol compared to classical cognitive stimulation. 5 key findings →
Individuals with Alzheimer’s dementia exhibited poorer nutritional status (EdFED: 8.0 vs. 2.0; NUFFE: 10.0 vs. 7.0; both p < 0.001) and lower adherence to the Mediterranean diet (6.0 vs. 7.0; p = 0.050). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Psychogeriatrics·2026-04-28
DSD occurred in 680 patients (39.8%). Compared with dementia alone, DSD was associated with higher PAS scores (5.3 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001), poorer functional status (FIM 48.6 vs. 57.8, p < 0.001) and more frequent in-hospital falls (29.9% vs. 17.5%, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Sensors·2025-04-02
Sensor-based surveillance technology (SST) is increasingly employed in the care of people with dementia (PwD) in hospitals, nursing homes, and home care. 1 key finding →
Caregivers in the control conditions reported significantly worsening sleep efficiency whereas in comparison, those in the active conditions reported improving sleep efficiency. 4 key findings →
POD occurred in 43 patients (4.1%). Affected patients were older, in poorer preoperative health, and had longer anaesthesia and surgery times. 5 key findings →
Among the 116 patients studied, 62.1% exhibited effective responses, 12.1% showed ineffectiveness, and 25.9% had uncertain outcomes with valproate therapy. 5 key findings →
Interviews with 50 Dutch physicians and 47 American physicians and 3 nurse practitioners generated three themes of ethical considerations: (1) Respecting the autonomy of the person with dementia, (2) Rationality as the basis for decisions and subsequent actions, and (3) Minimizing burden and suffering. 3 key findings →
The proportion of palliative utilization in cancer deaths started at 21.7% in 2010 and increased to 63.2% by 2020 with the beta coefficient of 0.09 (95% CI: 0.09-0.09). 5 key findings →
Participants actively contemplated ACP following their parents' death, referring to their end-of-life caregiving experiences as guideposts for issues to anticipate and opportunities to enhance receipt of healthcare during serious illness or incapacitation. 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.