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 2,047 studies published 2026(page 31 of 82)· 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Figshare·2026-02-09
Appendix B. Coding tree of main categories and specific sub categories describing factors influencing readiness for advance care planning among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Figshare·2026-02-09
Appendix A. Interview guides on experiences with advance care planning, factors influencing readiness for advance care planning, and the use of conversation aids among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. 2 key findings →
Anti-amyloid antibody treatment for Alzheimer’s disease is linked to Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities (ARIA), including vasogenic edema (ARIA-E) and microhemorrhages (ARIA-H), especially in ApoE ε4/4 carriers. 3 key findings →
Considering the overall sci-entific evidence presented, it is important to note that GLPs are no longer just antihyperglycemic drugs but are remarkably versatile, with a future in almost every field of medicine. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·F1000Res·2026-06-18
This case underscores the importance of routine sodium monitoring in elderly patients with dementia initiated on serotonergic or antipsychotic therapy. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·HRB Open Res·2026-09-22
This study is one the first to account of attribute development for a DCE examining the public preferences for autonomy enhancing dementia care in Ireland. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·PloS one·2026-04-30
The project Aging in Place applies a novel approach to investigate how social care services in Sweden are adapted to preferences and needs of older persons living at home with dementia (including their partners). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·HRB Open Res·2026-07-28
This intervention represents the output of the iterative development of a complex intervention to fulfil an unmet need for PwD and sensory loss. 2 key findings →
Understanding regional and racial variation in the risk of hospitalization with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD)-and how it differs from other conditions-is required to inform effective practice and policy. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2026-04-02
Concurrent diarrhea and wasting (DW) among children aged 6–24 months represents a critical public health threat in East Africa, exacerbating infection susceptibility, stunting, cognitive impairment, and mortality. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Autophagy·2026-01-10
Apoptosis, a programmed cell death process activated in Alzheimer disease (AD), is not limited to neurons but extends to all cell types within the central nervous system (CNS). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·NeuroImage Clinical·2026-01-01
Neurodegeneration status was correctly identified in 78.8% (119/151) of amyloid-negative patients through visual rating, compared to 67.5% (102/151) using logistic regression. 5 key findings →
In older adults, temporal [18F]PI-2620 binding was higher in women (β = 0.543, P < 0.001) and APOE4 carriers (β = 0.395, P = 0.030) and was positively associated with plasma p-tau217 (β = 0.22, P = 0.008). 4 key findings →
Identity-by-descent (IBD) mapping provides complementary signals to genome-wide association studies (GWASs) when multiple causal haplotypes or variants are present but not directly tested. 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.