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 801–825 of 1,335 studies published 2020(page 33 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.
Medial temporal lobe dependent cognitive functions are highly vulnerable to hypoxia in the hippocampal region, yet little is known about the relationship between the richness of hippocampal vascular supply and cognition. 1 key finding →
Our results demonstrate that novel AD biomarker candidates are identified and confirmed by proteomic studies of brain tissue and biofluids, providing a rich resource for large-scale biomarker validation for the AD community. 3 key findings →
Despite challenges, current literature and practice support implementation of telemedicine assessments for patients with cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Nature communications·2020-11-30
The extent of microglial heterogeneity in humans remains a central yet poorly explored question in light of the development of therapies targeting this cell type. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Nature genetics·2020-09-28
Protein aggregation is the hallmark of neurodegeneration, but the molecular mechanisms underlying late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) are unclear. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Nature communications·2020-08-21
We describe a human single-nuclei transcriptomic atlas for the substantia nigra (SN), generated by sequencing approximately 17,000 nuclei from matched cortical and SN samples. 2 key findings →
We demonstrate for the first time a link between MBI and early AD pathology in a cognitively intact elderly population, supporting the use of the MBI-C as a metric to enhance clinical trial enrolment. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2020-05-29
To estimate dementia incidence rates using Australian administrative datasets and compare the characteristics of people identified with dementia across different datasets. 5 key findings →
In the last 20 years, research focused on developing retinal imaging as a source of potential biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases, has increased significantly. 2 key findings →
We observed significant increases in all-cause hospital admissions (2.53% in PD and 2.49% in AD/dementia) attributable to high PM2.5 exposure. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neuroradiology·2020-05-15
Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is a common cerebrovascular disease involved in ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes, and its progression is correlated to cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Sensors·2020-06-06
We present a model for digital neural impairment screening and self-assessment, which can evaluate cognitive and motor deficits for patients with symptoms of central nervous system (CNS) disorders, such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Parkinson's disease (PD), Huntington's disease (HD), or dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2020-08-18
Recent functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have demonstrated that moment-to-moment variability in the blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal is related to age differences, cognition, and symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neurology·2020-01-22
Despite the presumptive common underlying neuropathology of amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, the 2 groups displayed 2 different patterns of network perturbation, each concordant with the clinical presentation and the anatomy of neurodegeneration. 2 key findings →
Transcriptome-wide association studies (TWASs) have been widely used to integrate gene expression and genetic data for studying complex traits. 4 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.