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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 751–775 of 1,335 studies published 2020(page 31 of 54)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 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 extended study duration, participants demonstrated high compliance with the schedule of daily learning tasks and were extremely positive about their experiences. 2 key findings →
These data suggest that current treatment of late stage parkinsonism in the community remains insufficiently effective to alleviate disabling symptoms in many patients. 3 key findings →
In 1907, Alois Alzheimer observed, as he quoted, development of "numerous fibers" and "adipose saccules" in the brain of his diseased patient Auguste Deter. 4 key findings →
Animal work investigating the consequences of maternal high-fat diet (mHFD) revealed in the offspring a maternal immune activation (MIA) phenotype associated with increased inflammatory signals. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Neurology·2020-02-03
One-hundred nineteen individuals with a family history of AD (Presymptomatic Evaluation of Experimental or Novel Treatments of Alzheimer's Disease [PREVENT-AD] cohort, mean age 67 ± 5 years) underwent tau-PET ([ 18 F]FTP), β-amyloid (Aβ)-PET ([ 18 F]NAV4694 [NAV]), and cognitive assessment. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2020-10-05
Growing evidence has suggested an association between sleep duration and Alzheimer's disease (AD), but it is unclear if sleep duration is a manifestation of the AD disease process. 4 key findings →
Neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer, Parkinson, Huntington, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, are a prominent class of neurological diseases currently without a cure. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Health Affairs·2020-11-01
The Medicare annual wellness visit-a preventive care visit free to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part B-requires detection of cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
We examined state variations in assisted living (AL) regulatory policies for admission/retention, staffing/training, medication management, and dementia care. 3 key findings →
In this study, we sought for a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) metabolomic fingerprint in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients characterized, according to the clinical picture and CSF AD core biomarkers (Aβ42, p-tau, and t-tau), both at pre-dementia (mild cognitive impairment due to AD, MCI-AD) and dementia stages (ADdem) and in a group of patients with a normal CSF biomarker profile (non-AD) using untargeted 1H nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy-based metabolomics. 3 key findings →
We found a significant increase in the concentrations of ZnT3, GluA3, and Dynamin1 in AD (p = 0.002) and of ZnT3 and Dynamin 1 in DLB (p = 0.001, p = 0.002) when compared to SCD patients. 4 key findings →
Lower levels of NFL, NG, Aβ42, and t-tau were found in patients with iNPH versus SIVD, while YKL-40 and p-tau were similar in the two diseases. 4 key findings →
CSF levels of apoE2, apoE3, and apoE4 were significantly higher (all nominal P < 10 × 10-5 , false discovery rate < 0.001) and those of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were significantly lower (nominal P = 1.39 × 10-6 , false discovery rate < 0.001) in APOE-ε4 carriers than in noncarriers. 3 key findings →
We found a significant genetic overlap between hearing impairment and AD and a polygenic risk score for AD was able to significantly predict hearing loss in an independent cohort. 5 key findings →
We found no significant changes in substantia nigra or cortex flortaucipir uptake in Parkinson's disease patients over two years and no association with changes in cognitive symptoms. 3 key findings →
A total of 13 case reports were found (10 for donepezil, 2 for galantamine and 1 for rivastigmine) with rate corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation. 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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.